[Moderated]Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[DMG]

In a religious disscusion on another forum where the JREF Challenge came up, I was asked about hypothetical instances in which the money would be won, he asked...

"What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?"

Not sure how to answer...
If the supernatural is found to be possible then doesn't it automatically become natural? IOW a "supernatural event" and a "natural event that we cannot yet explain or understand" are the same thing, yes?

But if James Randi the challenge was ever passed and the money paid, what would be the effect on skeptics?

[Darat]

(Welcome to the Forum by the way)

All your questions have been asked and answered many times before - I'll try to summarise some of the more common answers.

First of all it is entirely possible that the Challenge could be won by trickery and Randi has made it very clear that even if that came to light after the Challenge was completed the money would be paid out. The Challenge is about doing what you say you can do not how it is done.

Secondly - I m sure many people would consider it interesting and quite surprising and my own view is that it would stimulate fresh and credible scientific research into the area in which the Challenge was won.

[DMG]

(Welcome to the Forum by the way)
Thanks! Love this site!

First of all it is entirely possible that the Challenge could be won by trickery and Randi has made it very clear that even if that came to light after the Challenge was completed the money would be paid out. The Challenge is about doing what you say you can do not how it is done.

Really? I thought the "how" was extraordinarily important. The money is for "...anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

Secondly - I m sure many people would consider it interesting and quite surprising and my own view is that it would stimulate fresh and credible scientific research into the area in which the Challenge was won.
Agreed. But if the challange was won and no mundane trickery was uncovered - would you feel forced to admit that something supernatural had occured? Or would the skeptic in you reserve such a judgement until more research and testing occured?

Oh - and sorry for revisiting this subject if it has been discussed many times before.:o

[sthomson]

Agreed. But if the challange was won and no mundane trickery was uncovered - would you feel forced to admit that something supernatural had occured? Or would the skeptic in you reserve such a judgement until more research and testing occured?

If a dowser (say) won the Randi challenge, I guarantee that he would be inundated with offers to further test his "powers", in a completely scientific and rational way. If someone can repeatedly find gold with no more than a pulse and a stick, then there should be some way of quantifying and harnessing that ability. Eventually (I imagine), scientists would discover the natural laws that explain dowsing, and it would no longer be considered "supernatural".

That's the Catch-22 for believers in the super-natural, and the reason science is so powerful. If we can prove it exists, we can study it. If we can study it, then eventually we'll find the causes of it, work out the effects, and harness it for our own good. Now, it's natural.

[plumjam]

If a dowser (say) won the Randi challenge, I guarantee that he would be inundated with offers to further test his "powers", in a completely scientific and rational way. If someone can repeatedly find gold with no more than a pulse and a stick, then there should be some way of quantifying and harnessing that ability. Eventually (I imagine), scientists would discover the natural laws that explain dowsing, and it would no longer be considered "supernatural".

That's the Catch-22 for believers in the super-natural, and the reason science is so powerful. If we can prove it exists, we can study it. If we can study it, then eventually we'll find the causes of it, work out the effects, and harness it for our own good. Now, it's natural.

I used to be a dowser, but now that's all water under the bridge :(

[GzuzKryzt]

I used to be a dowser, but now that's all water under the bridge :(

I was well endowed as a user but now there's water in my bridges.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=DMG;3008432]
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
..........The Challenge is about doing what you say you can do not how it is done.
Really? I thought the "how" was extraordinarily important. The money is for "...anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

You have just entered an impossible to escape circularly self referencing word game which is the standard site response to your questions.

It is logically beyond resolution because it is based on the underlying presumption, already evident in a post here, that psi-ESP events are by definition necessarily impossible, with the contradictory corollory and undecideable claim that they are ultimately accessible to and explicable by physical science: A contradiction in terms.

[rjh01]

If it was possible to win by trickery it would have been won by now. But no-one has even made a serious attempt at trickery... yet.

[H3LL]

Welcome.

I'll reiterate some of what Darat said.

The 'how' is not important. If you look through various attempts at winning the $million, you will see that the 'how' takes up a considerable amount of the time taken trying to establish a protocol.

Many applicants spend endless time explaining their pet theory about how they can achieve what they claim to do. Randi, and very few here, aren't even slightly interested in the pixie, angel, spirit, alien, Qi, ley-line or other source of their "mysterious" power. All we want to see is a demonstration of what they claim to do under controlled conditions. Some applicants just will not stop talking about their favourite fairy, even after repeated request to stop and provide a workable protocol.

If a claim to levitate objects is made. We want to see an object levitated. Who cares if the applicant has been granted supreme levitation powers by the Inglebod Demon of Booga-loo. The how is for others after we have seen an object levitated.

Unfortunately, no one has been able to demonstrate a single one of their claimed abilities.

Their claim, their agreed protocol and their agreed environment. Often they are allowed a test without controls for them to check their ability is working (nearly always with dowsers).

Not a single one has succeeded as yet.

For your other point. There are many things that we cannot detect. Their existence is hypothesised from the effect they have on other things. There is a lot of experimentation and research attempting to find such things. Sometimes they are found.

For example: We may know that thing X consists of A+B+C having 10 units of energy. But when we convert X to energy it produces 11 units of energy. There must be something else there...a mysterious D. What is/are D?

Taken at face value, Qi, although undetectable, its effect, when channelled through a Qi Master causes a metal plate to slide across a table. There must be something else, another force/energy added to the known environment.

This puzzle is somewhat spoilt when the other force is found to be a small guy under the table with a magnet.

.

[Kevin_Lowe]

[QUOTE]


You have just entered an impossible to escape circularly self referencing word game which is the standard site response to your questions.

It is logically beyond resolution because it is based on the underlying presumption, already evident in a post here, that psi-ESP events are by definition necessarily impossible, with the contradictory corollory and undecideable claim that they are ultimately accessible to and explicable by physical science: A contradiction in terms.

For the purposes of the million dollar challenge, "supernatural" just means "whatever you can talk Randi and company into accepting as a fit demonstration".

The real word games come from the woo-woos. Skeptics don't care whether you call it supernatural or not, we just want to see if it works.

[DMG]

Welcome.

I'll reiterate some of what Darat said.

The 'how' is not important. If you look through various attempts at winning the $million, you will see that the 'how' takes up a considerable amount of the time taken trying to establish a protocol.

Many applicants spend endless time explaining their pet theory about how they can achieve what they claim to do. Randi, and very few here, aren't even slightly interested in the pixie, angel, spirit, alien, Qi, ley-line or other source of their "mysterious" power. All we want to see is a demonstration of what they claim to do under controlled conditions. Some applicants just will not stop talking about their favourite fairy, even after repeated request to stop and provide a workable protocol.

If a claim to levitate objects is made. We want to see an object levitated. Who cares if the applicant has been granted supreme levitation powers by the Inglebod Demon of Booga-loo. The how is for others after we have seen an object levitated.

Unfortunately, no one has been able to demonstrate a single one of their claimed abilities.

Their claim, their agreed protocol and their agreed environment. Often they are allowed a test without controls for them to check their ability is working (nearly always with dowsers).

Not a single one has succeeded as yet.

For your other point. There are many things that we cannot detect. Their existence is hypothesised from the effect they have on other things. There is a lot of experimentation and research attempting to find such things. Sometimes they are found.

For example: We may know that thing X consists of A+B+C having 10 units of energy. But when we convert X to energy it produces 11 units of energy. There must be something else there...a mysterious D. What is/are D?

Taken at face value, Qi, although undetectable, its effect, when channelled through a Qi Master causes a metal plate to slide across a table. There must be something else, another force/energy added to the known environment.

This puzzle is somewhat spoilt when the other force is found to be a small guy under the table with a magnet.

.
Ya :)Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

I am beginning to understand a little better now.

[Michael C]

If the supernatural is found to be possible then doesn't it automatically become natural? IOW a "supernatural event" and a "natural event that we cannot yet explain or understand" are the same thing, yes?

But if James Randi the challenge was ever passed and the money paid, what would be the effect on skeptics?

Richard Dawkins posed very much this question to Randi at TAM in 2005:

- Dawkins:
"What if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is going to be embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal, and so that's waiting to be demonstrated, and it will be demonstrated if there really is a perinormal phenomenon there. I mean, you shouldn't have to pay out for that, because it becomes physics, but I wonder how you define that which you are prepared to pay out for."

- Randi
"Well, first of all I'll say that if we had to pay out the million dollars, I'd happily do it. We would have discovered something wonderful and new and it would be worth a million dollars to have that phenomenon established."

fqNueGGP_uE

[DMG]

Thanks for that vid MichaelC - appreciated.

[JollyRoger]

That's the Catch-22 for believers in the super-natural, and the reason science is so powerful. If we can prove it exists, we can study it. If we can study it, then eventually we'll find the causes of it, work out the effects, and harness it for our own good. Now, it's natural.

I guess its only magic or super-natural until you find out how it works, until then I guess we can all enjoy the illusion. Whether we sit in the back of the audience and try to figure it out, or sit in front in wonder and amazement.

I anxiously await someone winning Randi's challenge but something inside me has always suggested IF it does happens it wont be any time soon.

[maatorc]

For the purposes of the million dollar challenge, "supernatural" just means "whatever you can talk Randi and company into accepting as a fit demonstration".

JREF
...At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

Are you then saying the MDC is not actually about what it says it is about?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are you then saying the MDC is not actually about what it says it is about?

I'm saying that the functional definition of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" for Challenge purposes is just whatever you can get Randi and company to accept as a fit demonstration.

Let me put it another way for you.

As far as we currently know everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is true as far as we currently know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist". The Challenge is to demonstrate that you can do something that is paranormal, supernatural, or occult as far as we currently know.

Once you have shown that it is not bunk or a trick, then we can worry about what to call this new phenomenon. Maybe we'll call it supernatural, maybe we'll call it something else.

[RemieV]

I'm saying that the functional definition of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" for Challenge purposes is just whatever you can get Randi and company to accept as a fit demonstration.

Let me put it another way for you.

As far as we currently know everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is true as far as we currently know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist". The Challenge is to demonstrate that you can do something that is paranormal, supernatural, or occult as far as we currently know.

Once you have shown that it is not bunk or a trick, then we can worry about what to call this new phenomenon. Maybe we'll call it supernatural, maybe we'll call it something else.

Excellently put!

[Darat]

...snip...

Agreed. But if the challange was won and no mundane trickery was uncovered - would you feel forced to admit that something supernatural had occured? Or would the skeptic in you reserve such a judgement until more research and testing occured?

...snip...

I would personally find it very, very interesting; it's hard to be more specific than that as my exact response would depend on exactly what had just won the challenge and what the challenge was.

[Loss Leader]

"What about nanotechnology or molecular computers or any number of sci-fi gadgets we wouldn't have the ability to detect? What if it were simply an incredibly skilled illusionist who managed to spoof all the equipment or subvert the observers? What I'm asking (for the third time) is if someone did something you couldn't explain is it supernatural or is it merely a natural law we currently don't understand well enough (or some other trick)?"



It's been hinted about but I don't think anyone has laid out what I consider to be the answer:

The MDC is, at its heart, a contract. It is not a prize won by the first person to do something "paranormal." Instead, the claimant and Randi negotiate a contract. The claimant says he will perform X using methods 1, 2 and 3 and Randi says that he will pay $1 million if he does. All the claimant has to do is the thing he said he'd do in the way he said he'd do it. It doesn't matter if it's paranormal or not; Randi agreed to pay a million bucks for it and Randi would have to pay.

Where most of your tricksters get caught up is that they cannot agree with Randi on a method. This is because they need some room to perform their tricks and Randi is intent on not allowing them to get that room. So no contract is ever made. Someone relying on a new bit of technology wouldn't have that problem.

[maatorc]

.............As far as we currently know everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is true as far as we currently know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist".


Because science does not currently know it is the practise to say everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is the practise because science does not know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist".

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because science does not currently know it is the practise to say everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is the practise because science does not know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist".

Yes, and more.

For example I know of no scientific research on the specific topic of whether I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear. However there is also no support in existing science for such a claim. So for now it is true to say "Kevin cannot paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of his ear".

If I demonstrated this ability to Randi for the money, of course that would change.

However things like psi are actually much more unlikely to be true than the claim that I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear.

Why, you ask? Because psi has been researched to death. Lots of researchers have designed incredibly sensitive trials in an attempt to detect the slightest whiff of reproducible psi powers and found nothing.

Here's another analogy for you.

I have a locked box, and I tell you there is a dragon in it. Is my claim true? Almost certainly not, but then again you have not looked in the box yet. It's at least conceivable there might be a dragon in there if we looked, even though it's terribly unlikely.

But suppose we open the box and explore every bit of it with our hands and eyes, with microscopes, with ultrasound, with x-rays and every other technology at our disposal and conclude that the box is completely goddamn empty. At that point the claim that there is a dragon in the box goes from "incredibly unlikely but at least conceivable" to "you'd have to be on crack to believe that".

The psi box has been opened and gone over with a microscope. It has been thoroughly investigated and the conclusion is that the box is completely goddamn empty. At this point you would have to be on crack to believe anyone running around the world today can channel spirits, or read minds, or see the future.

Do you understand my position? Feel free to ask questions if I have been in any way unclear.

[maatorc]

Yes, and more.
1... For example I know of no scientific research on the specific topic of whether I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear. However there is also no support in existing science for such a claim. So for now it is true to say "Kevin cannot paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of his ear".If I demonstrated this ability to Randi for the money, of course that would change.
2... However things like psi are actually much more unlikely to be true than the claim that I can paranormally pull an unlimited number of fluffy bunny rabbits out of my ear.Why, you ask? Because psi has been researched to death. Lots of researchers have designed incredibly sensitive trials in an attempt to detect the slightest whiff of reproducible psi powers and found nothing.
3... Here's another analogy for you. I have a locked box, and I tell you there is a dragon in it. Is my claim true? Almost certainly not, but then again you have not looked in the box yet. It's at least conceivable there might be a dragon in there if we looked, even though it's terribly unlikely.
But suppose we open the box and explore every bit of it with our hands and eyes, with microscopes, with ultrasound, with x-rays and every other technology at our disposal and conclude that the box is completely goddamn empty. At that point the claim that there is a dragon in the box goes from "incredibly unlikely but at least conceivable" to "you'd have to be on crack to believe that".
4... The psi box has been opened and gone over with a microscope. It has been thoroughly investigated and the conclusion is that the box is completely goddamn empty. At this point you would have to be on crack to believe anyone running around the world today can channel spirits, or read minds, or see the future.Do you understand my position? Feel free to ask questions if I have been in any way unclear.

1... This is not psi-esp: It is diversionary nonsense.
2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.
3... This also is totally unconnected to and entirely outside the psi-esp question.
4... The psi-esp box is inaccessible to material scientific methods. It has been concluded to be empty because material science cannot open it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.


Does psi-esp do anything?

If so, what?

[ProbeX]

(Welcome to the Forum by the way)

Secondly - I m sure many people would consider it interesting and quite surprising and my own view is that it would stimulate fresh and credible scientific research into the area in which the Challenge was won.

Unfortunately this is not likely to happen. Randi employs aspects of science but does not adhere to established scientific protocol in completion; failing to meet the strictures of clinical testing, which is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in the actual professional scientific community.

He is a magician, not a scientist. And his tests are tainted from the beginning because he couches them as "advisarial" in nature. That automatically lowers the credibility of his finding (and his organization, by proxy) ... especially because money and fame are at stake.

One thing that continues to get overlooked about the Challenge, is that if classical scientific approach isn't strictly applied from start to finish, it will have little to no credibility to the scientific community en masse.

A biased magician and his adversarial's "findings" will fail to win over the professional scientific community, regardless of any alleged positive outcome. There's only one way Randi, as a layperson, could begin to hope to gain respect from competent scientists en masse.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think you're about as wrong as you can get, ProbeX.

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

If scientists investigate such dodgy subjects as test-tube cold fusion based on uncorroborated reports, I think they'd investigate a bona-fide supernatural event caught on film under controlled conditions.

[maatorc]

Does psi-esp do anything? If so, what?

The real question is not what it 'does' but what it 'is'.

[maatorc]

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

There are no supernatural powers: There is nothing super beyond the natural.
Every function of the human mind is natural.
Psi-esp is just a name for sensing beyond the phenomenal range, that we call psychic.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The real question is not what it 'does' but what it 'is'.

Yes, but does it do anything? Anything at all?

[Kimpatsu]

Does psi-esp do anything?

If so, what?
It has the paranormal ability to generate pages and pages of debate like this one. :D

[Kimpatsu]

Yes, but does it do anything? Anything at all?
See above. :D

[Michael C]

There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

[steenkh]

Unfortunately this is not likely to happen. Randi employs aspects of science but does not adhere to established scientific protocol in completion; failing to meet the strictures of clinical testing, which is a prerequisite for being taken seriously in the actual professional scientific community.
James Randi is already taken seriously in the actual scientific community. He was called upon by Nature to assist in assessing the laboratory procedures of Jacques Benveniste, and scientists line up to talk at congresses that have James Randi as the main event. But I think you misunderstand the MDC much like maatorc does: the MDC is not and has never been presented as a scientific test. The results of the test will never be presented in a scientific paper; there will be no peer review. But the publicity gained from a carefully controlled successful test will attract real scientific researchers. Not least because the woo society will start loving James Randi if someone wlaks away with the million, and they will milk the story for all it is worth. Real scientists will know that grants will be readily available for research into a subject like this.

He is a magician, not a scientist. And his tests are tainted from the beginning because he couches them as "advisarial" in nature. That automatically lowers the credibility of his finding (and his organization, by proxy) ... especially because money and fame are at stake.
I do not follow you. If someone is successful at the test, you think that the adversarial nature of the MDC will have 'tainted' the result so that the credibility is low? I would have thought it was the other way round, that the adversarial nature would make it even more remarkable if somebody wins at the challenge.

[ChristineR]

The term supernatural is poorly defined. In ancient times the use of some drugs was considered supernatural as their actions were so bizarre and poorly understood. If we ever discover an "ESP wave emitter" structure in the brain then that will undeniably be natural. Some people go so far as to claim that that anything that is proven to exist must by definition be considered natural.

For the purposes of the MDC supernatural is whatever Randi says it is. Randi has been pretty liberal in his definitions, except that he has arbitrarily excluded certain dangerous practices (not eating) and cloud busting, apparently because he was simply sick of dealing with people who are incapable of designing a good test and understanding statistics.

You could argue that cloud busting and fasting are not supernatural as they are simply people misinterpreting and mismeasuring natural phenomena, but I think it's unfortunate that the JREF has declared that they are not supernatural, as it confuses an already confused issue.

[ProbeX]

I think you're about as wrong as you can get, ProbeX.

The scientific discovery and documentation of supernatural powers would be a huge coup for the first people to do it. Something pretty exiting would have to happen to compete with it for a Nobel, and their name would be in science textbooks forever.

If scientists investigate such dodgy subjects as test-tube cold fusion based on uncorroborated reports, I think they'd investigate a bona-fide supernatural event caught on film under controlled conditions.

You misunderstand: “scientific discovery”, as you state it, requires strict adherence to extremely rigorous, classical scientific methodology. Since Randi is not imploring classical scientific methodology from beginning to end (although he hires scientific clinicians at times - chosen from his pre-selectedpool of clinicians [by the "adversary"] ), there can be no official “scientific” discovery on his watch. The scientific community en masse sees Randi as a magician; an entertainer; not a scientist. Unfortunately for him, strict, classical scientific methodology (which requires credentials he lacks) is ubiquitously understood to be the most esteemed form of objective testing.

One limitation that renders his process of testing useless, is the fact that he seems to ignore the fact that he's involved in human testing; not just (pseudo) scientific testing. Where performance testing is involved, there are a very specific set of objective conditions that Randi fails to meet. Ask me what some of these standards are (hint: I’ve already mentioned a couple in the last post).

[ProbeX]

James Randi is already taken seriously in the actual scientific community. He was called upon by Nature to assist in assessing the laboratory procedures of Jacques Benveniste, and scientists line up to talk at congresses that have James Randi as the main event. But I think you misunderstand the MDC much like maatorc does: the MDC is not and has never been presented as a scientific test. The results of the test will never be presented in a scientific paper; there will be no peer review. But the publicity gained from a carefully controlled successful test will attract real scientific researchers. Not least because the woo society will start loving James Randi if someone wlaks away with the million, and they will milk the story for all it is worth. Real scientists will know that grants will be readily available for research into a subject like this.

What I mean by “taken seriously” is not that he is called upon to talk or assist someone. Someone with a BS in biology, or a magician with a keen eye can assist or talk theory or dogma. What I mean is the results of his tests, specifically, will not be taken as de facto sound, due to his highly unprofessional and amateurish human performance testing methods.

You are correct: he will not be presented in scientific journals and there will be no peer review (translation: lack of objective oversight and low confidence in his testing methods - oh, plus he is not a scientific peer LOL). Now I agree that some might turn their heads, but that doesn’t establish credibility of his tests whatsoever. Alleged positive results of a test are questionable if classical, objective methods weren’t used. Period. Sad but true. There's no way around this.

I do not follow you. If someone is successful at the test, you think that the adversarial nature of the MDC will have 'tainted' the result so that the credibility is low? I would have thought it was the other way round, that the adversarial nature would make it even more remarkable if somebody wins at the challenge.

Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result. The adversarial piece is another issue; one which will most likely interfere with potentially positive results due to bias in the individual or group initiating and sponsoring human performance tests.

[ChristineR]

You are presenting one scenario: somebody passes Randi's test and the scientists dismiss it. I'm racking my brain trying to think of why this might happen, and the only example I come up with is that the applicant found a cheat that evaded Randi. If the applicant found a genuine unknown phenomenon, the scientists would waste no time in looking into the details.

The challenge is unconcerned with the scientific details of the phenomenon. There is a good chance that if someone wins the challenge with a genuine unknown phenomenon then the applicant's claims about his discovery will be completely wrong. So what? That's not the purpose of the challenge.

I see no particular adversarial bias in Randi's protocols. The tests require straightforward, non-subjective results. It's true that not all scientific experiments are adaptable to the protocol, but that's not the purpose of the challenge.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You misunderstand: “scientific discovery”, as you state it, requires strict adherence to extremely rigorous, classical scientific methodology. Since Randi is not imploring classical scientific methodology from beginning to end (although he hires scientific clinicians at times - chosen from his pre-selectedpool of clinicians [by the "adversary"] ), there can be no official “scientific” discovery on his watch. The scientific community en masse sees Randi as a magician; an entertainer; not a scientist. Unfortunately for him, strict, classical scientific methodology (which requires credentials he lacks) is ubiquitously understood to be the most esteemed form of objective testing.

One limitation that renders his process of testing useless, is the fact that he seems to ignore the fact that he's involved in human testing; not just (pseudo) scientific testing. Where performance testing is involved, there are a very specific set of objective conditions that Randi fails to meet. Ask me what some of these standards are (hint: I’ve already mentioned a couple in the last post).

I'm really not sure where you are coming from with this stuff.

If all you're saying is that whatever exact measurements and results come out of a MDC run will not be taken by the scientific community as being as precise as measurements conducted in a lab, well sure.

If you are saying that scientists with simply ignore a clear-cut demonstration of new science because of that assumed lack of maximal precision I think you're out of touch with reality.

[Monza]

...Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result. The adversarial piece is another issue; one which will most likely interfere with potentially positive results due to bias in the individual or group initiating and sponsoring human performance tests.

You are missing the point of the MDC. It is not a scientific test, nor is is meant to be. It is simply a demonstration under controlled conditions. In other words, after a claim is made and a protocol proposed, Randi adds controls which will nulify forms of cheating as best as he can determine. If the claimant agrees that these controls will not hinder his/her powers, then the demonstration proceeds.

Assuming that the claimant is successful, you seem to be concerned that the scientific community will ignore the results due to Randi's standing (or lack thereof) in the scientific community. So what? The MDC has already served its purpose. Whether scientists pursue the matter or not is up to them.

[Monza]

I should add that the robustness of the testing protocol is shared between the claimant and the JREF. If Randi doesn't do his job well and allows sloppy test conditions, then shame on him. But the contract is between the JREF and the claimant. So if they decide on certain conditions, then that is their perogotive.

[ChristineR]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

No, I don't think so. If you can send thoughts to another person, that is a phenomena. Certainly it is observable and measurable. That is, if I send you a thought of a blue beach ball, you can observe and measure the blue beach ball.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The statistical result would be inference but not proof.

Whether or not that is true, it would still be more than sufficient to win the million dollar challenge

[maatorc]

Whether or not that is true, it would still be more than sufficient to win the million dollar challenge

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

[Gilmar]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

You don't have to prove it is not 'bunk or trick' to win the million. You just have to meet the criteria mutually agreed-upon by you and JREF. If you use trickery, you still win the dough.

[steenkh]

You could argue that cloud busting and fasting are not supernatural as they are simply people misinterpreting and mismeasuring natural phenomena, but I think it's unfortunate that the JREF has declared that they are not supernatural, as it confuses an already confused issue.
The MDC uses the term "paranormal" and not "supernatural", but I do not know if there is a difference. The JREF has not declared cloudbusting etc. to be "not paranormal", they have just been excluded from the MDC for practical and legal reasons.

[steenkh]

Again, I’m concerned about the methods that determined “success”. Whatsoever the alleged results are - positive or negative - they will be questionable due to sloppy “science” used to reach the supposed result.
Your claim is clearly founded on your imagination. There are many real scientists on this forum, and none have stated that they could not accept a positive result. In the past, real scientists have been asked to conduct the tests, and it would be strange if they would not accept a test they had performed themselves.

And as for the strawman of the sloppy "science", the MDC is not and has never been, science. The MDC is designed to give a clear-cut result that can only be entirely positive or entirely negative. It does not yield "more research is needed", as most scientific experiments do.

[steenkh]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?
What relevance does this have to the MDC? It is only in your head that the MDC is about finding the truth about ESP.

[Kevin_Lowe]

How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?

Gilmar has it exactly right.

You do not need to prove it is not bunk or a trick to win the million. You just have to do whatever it was you said you could do.

If you do what you said you could, you win the million, end of story.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
How do you prove it is not 'bunk or trick'?
You don't have to prove it is not 'bunk or trick' to win the million. You just have to meet the criteria mutually agreed-upon by you and JREF. If you use trickery, you still win the dough.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.


So what is the point of the above rule?

[steenkh]

So what is the point of the above rule?
Please notice that the JREF talks about "evidence", not "proof". This evidence may later turn out to be misleading, but the million is gone by then.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So what is the point of the above rule?

I guess it's so people can't win the million for demonstrating that they can crochet, or juggle, or something dumb like that.

[Gravy]

So what is the point of the above rule?Because the qualification "or can demonstrate what appears to be evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event, through the use of undetected trickery" doesn't look good on the page, and may encourage magicians or hoaxters to apply, rather than people who believe they have paranormal abilities. In working with the claimants on the test protocols, Randi and the challenge administrators do take steps to eliminate known methods of trickery.

[Michael C]

2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

I'd still like to know your answer to this question, maatorc. If there are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp, how can it be detected?

[ProbeX]

Your claim is clearly founded on your imagination. There are many real scientists on this forum, and none have stated that they could not accept a positive result. In the past, real scientists have been asked to conduct the tests, and it would be strange if they would not accept a test they had performed themselves.That a scientist is willing to work on some aspect of Randi’s adversarial tests, does not validate the overall procedure; the tests still do not conform to the scientific process generally acknowledged by the larger scientific community. Also, you will need to put out a call for the “real scientists” you claim are here at the forum (who must be equally trained in the area of human testing), so I can have a reasonable (non-layperson’s) discourse with them about this. So let us pit these scientists against my clinically-experienced “imagination”. Throw down the gauntlet now and we’ll see which of your clinical scientists comes running, and what they have to say on this matter to refute me.

And as for the strawman of the sloppy "science", the MDC is not and has never been, science. The MDC is designed to give a clear-cut result that can only be entirely positive or entirely negative. It does not yield "more research is needed", as most scientific experiments do.One can’t have it both ways. As long as Randi implores scientists for aspects of his tests, his tests are partially scientific in nature, which is not good enough; fails to meet the criteria for all-inclusive scientific protocol within the true context of scientific human clinical testing. That’s what makes any claim acquired in this way, highly questionable as objective. Science is not something you sample or use outside the clinical context, then disclaim later during evidential claims or outcomes.

Try this: point me to a test of his where the use of one or more scientists are noted. Choose one that you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects (now you have two assignments). … Also, understand, “more research is needed” is sine qua non. It is another way of saying the findings need to be verified.

[Kevin_Lowe]

ProbeX it seems to me that your understanding of scientific methodology is slightly off-beam.

Meticulous controls, especially when dealing with human performance, are absolutely necessary if we want to get highly accurate data. Randi's protocols would be indeed be inadequate to gauge someone's psychic powers to ten decimal places.

Meticulous controls are not necessary when scientifically demonstrating the obvious. An unsupported rock falls and you don't need to measure its acceleration to ten decimal places to prove it. Set off some thermite and you get a violent exothermic reaction, and you don't need to measure the temperature of the reaction to ten decimal places to prove it, nor do you need to analyse the results with a spectrometer.

If someone can dowse or read minds, and we just want to prove that they can do it rather than measure any variables involved precisely, Randi's experiments do the job perfectly well. I don't know of any scientists who would ignore a plainly obvious finding because the obvious was not measured with sufficient precision, as long as the methodology excluded all alterative explanations.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
2... There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.
Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?
I'd still like to know your answer to this question, maatorc. If there are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp, how can it be detected?

I gave you a longish answer which was moved.
Briefly, only one actually participating in psi-esp can experientially know, and it cannot be otherwise proven.

[Kevin_Lowe]

For the purposes of science you don't need to "experientially know" a phenomenon in order to study it or demonstrate that it exists.

If someone else can guess an image at a rate greater than chance, for example, that would constitute scientific proof even though the scientist does not "experientially know" that psi-esp is at work.

[maatorc]

1... For the purposes of science you don't need to "experientially know" a phenomenon in order to study it or demonstrate that it exists.
2... If someone else can guess an image at a rate greater than chance, for example, that would constitute scientific proof even though the scientist does not "experientially know" that psi-esp is at work.

1... I am talking about noumena.

2... Not proof; perhaps inference.

[Kevin_Lowe]

1... I am talking about noumena.

Sorry about that. We'll stick with your terminology for now.


2... Not proof; perhaps inference.

It's not proof that you used psi-esp to send an image into their mind.

It is proof that you can guess an image with a rate of success better than chance. That will win the million and attract scientific interest.

[maatorc]

..........
Quote: maatorc
2... Not proof; perhaps inference.
It's not proof that you used psi-esp to send an image into their mind.
It is proof that you can guess an image with a rate of success better than chance. That will win the million and attract scientific interest.

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.

It is extremely doubtful a rate of success better than chance. will attract any serious scientific attention. This sort of stuff and its statistical variations have been going on for decades.

The presumption by the JREF that such an event would be a major world-wide item is seriously missplaced: It will be something of a yawn.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.

This is incorrect. Such a demonstration would indeed qualify, assuming all the other requirements were met.

[Gravy]

It is too trivial for the JREF to even consider paying $1M.False. The JREF has done such tests of challengers for the million dollars. Review the challenge applications and results.

It is extremely doubtful a rate of success better than chance. will attract any serious scientific attention. This sort of stuff and its statistical variations have been going on for decades.

The presumption by the JREF that such an event would be a major world-wide item is seriously missplaced: It will be something of a yawn.You are talking about minor statistical variations, which is not what the MDC is about. The test protocols require a rate of success greatly better than chance, which would be of interest to scientists and laymen. Again, please review the applications and protocols before opining about this.

[steenkh]

That a scientist is willing to work on some aspect of Randi’s adversarial tests, does not validate the overall procedure; the tests still do not conform to the scientific process generally acknowledged by the larger scientific community.
There is no procedure to be validated: the MDC is not and has never been a scientific study. It is a wager that nobody who claims to be capable of paranormal powers will actually be able to demonstrate those powers.

Also, you will need to put out a call for the “real scientists” you claim are here at the forum (who must be equally trained in the area of human testing), so I can have a reasonable (non-layperson’s) discourse with them about this. So let us pit these scientists against my clinically-experienced “imagination”. Throw down the gauntlet now and we’ll see which of your clinical scientists comes running, and what they have to say on this matter to refute me.
You can make your call yourself. I find it ridiculous.

One can’t have it both ways. As long as Randi implores scientists for aspects of his tests, his tests are partially scientific in nature, which is not good enough; fails to meet the criteria for all-inclusive scientific protocol within the true context of scientific human clinical testing.
Randi is not performing scientific human clinical testing: there are no scientific criteria to be met.

You are effectively claiming that if somebody wins the million dollars with all the publicity inherent in the event, this will be completely ignored by the scientific community (not just the likes of yourself), and no scientist will try to confirm the existence of the winning paranormal powers using proper scientific testing methods?

That’s what makes any claim acquired in this way, highly questionable as objective.
What claim?

Try this: point me to a test of his where the use of one or more scientists are noted.
"JAK" KEERAN, Astrologer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=41120)
Choose one that you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects (now you have two assignments).
No, because I do not see the point: Why should I find a challenge test that lives up to some standard that has nothing to do with the challenge?

… Also, understand, “more research is needed” is sine qua non. It is another way of saying the findings need to be verified.
I know: but this is the most positive result that is ever gained from research into the paranormal.

[petre]

I gave you a longish answer which was moved.
Briefly, only one actually participating in psi-esp can experientially know, and it cannot be otherwise proven.

I don't suppose you'd consider "if you believe in psi-esp, it's all in your head" an acceptable alternative wording? :P

[Michael C]

Thanks petre, you put it in a nutshell.

For maatorc: could you give a concrete example of a psi-esp experience which is only knowable to the person experiencing it, but cannot otherwise be proven?

[ProbeX]

There is no procedure to be validated: the MDC is not and has never been a scientific study. It is a wager that nobody who claims to be capable of paranormal powers will actually be able to demonstrate those powers.You’re merely restating my point: the Challenge fails to live up to the most superior form of evidence gathering and testing: classical scientific methodology. Anything short of that is questionable at best. And you are correct that it is about wagering/gambling. Gosh it’s so unprofessional and bias it’s ridiculous.

You can make your call yourself. I find it ridiculous [in reference to a challenge for you to locate any scientific clinician on this site who has human testing experience and is willing to refute my argument/s] But alas, no need for either of us to give a shout out. Bringing up the question was a shout out in and of itself. As you can see, we are met with crickets. But anyone credentialed is still encouraged to speak up.

Randi is not performing scientific human clinical testing: there are no scientific criteria to be met.Well of course he isn’t. What he’s doing can’t live up to the high standards of disciplined, professional scientific standards of collecting evidence. So the fact that he implores scientists only here and there, or in an untrained manner, limits the credibility of his testing outcomes.

You are effectively claiming that if somebody wins the million dollars with all the publicity inherent in the event, this will be completely ignored by the scientific community (not just the likes of yourself), and no scientist will try to confirm the existence of the winning paranormal powers using proper scientific testing methods?Listen more carefully: I acknowledged at the onset that some scientists won’t and have not “completely ignored him“. What I’ve said is that the scientific community en masse will not take his procedures/outcomes seriously. As you pointed out, one piece of evidence for this is that his work will not be published in any esteemed journals, for example. There is a larger problem than his alleged findings turning heads … he is met with the problem of many clinicians not trusting how he arrived at his results. Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings.

There were all kinds of problems with the Jak Keeran set up (and w other proposed tests of his). It is sloppy to invite a layperson to propose objective testing conditions, and equally sloppy to invite oneself or representee's from one’s biased camp to amen it. Again, scientists and clinicians - totally unaffiliated with the JREF or the test subject - (called independent 3rd parties) should be implored from A to Z. No clinicians associated with Randi should be collecting or touching any materials belonging to the "adversarial" test subject. You have know idea how laughable this is in the clinical field. I must have overlooked the scientists you were pointing to in this case example … whom exactly?

I asked you to choose a test you think was set up in a way that conforms to the highest objective standards - up to par with classical scientific standards in context of testing human subjects. You refused, but that’s OK. It would have taken a lot of fruitless effort.
I know: but this is the most positive result that is ever gained from research into the paranormal.Come again? What are you calling "the most positive result" … and why?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Did you miss my post, ProbeX?

I've known a few scientists and read a fair bit about scientific methodology, and nothing I have ever encountered leads me to believe any decent scientist will ignore a clear-cut conclusion just because it was measured with a degree of imprecision.

I suspect you've seen scientists reject studies where the lack of precision was large enough relative to the measured effect to make the study worthless, and mistakenly generalised to the cargo cult conclusion that fine precision is necessary for it's own sake before a scientists will take a result seriously.

That's just incorrect.

[maatorc]

I don't suppose you'd consider "if you believe in psi-esp, it's all in your head" an acceptable alternative wording? :P

Everything you sense at all levels is 'in your head'.
Mentality is everything: You do not and cannot know anything else.

[maatorc]

.......For maatorc: could you give a concrete example of a psi-esp experience which is only knowable to the person experiencing it, but cannot otherwise be proven?

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

[RemieV]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

Yes, you can, if the image or sound was decided upon and written down beforehand and shared between the sender and a third party, but not with the receiver.

[jeffq]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.
Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.
The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

Sophistic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistic) gobbledegook (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gobbledegook)! From Merriam-Websters Online (http://www.webster.com): noumenon: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

Just how does something "appear" independent of senses? "Noumenon" sounds to me like another word for the Platonic "form" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms), which is a theoretical or idealistic construct. It exists only in the imagination, and has no impact on the real world. Paranormalists insist that "psi" phenonmenon have an impact on the real world; otherwise, nobody would care about their pretty ideas. Using "noumenal" to explain "paranormal" is merely a pre-technology version of abusing terms like "quantum vibrations" to confuse people (especially the fools that are tricked into parroting these non-explanations). A sure way to detect these con-jobs is when people spout rarely used terms like "noumenal" and "incommensurability", betting that their audience's eyes will glaze over in confusion and just nod their heads, unwilling to admit they don't know what's being said.

There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

There are no scientific trials capable of "detecting" the "appleness" of an apple, either, as this is a mental construct that has no existence in the real world outside of the electrochemical connections that store and reinforce our mental concepts. (And if we ever learn to decode those connections, even this would become scientifically testable.)

However, as long as paranormalists claim that something is being done with this "noumenon" (e.g., "I read minds", "I predict the future", "I see objects that are miles away behind locked doors"), scientific tests can be designed and executed to test these claims. Anything else is just imagination, no more meaningful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And those who refuse to define something to test, preferring to ramble on about imaginary concepts, are just running away from the harsh light of reality, regardless of what obscure adjectives they preface it with.

[maatorc]

Sophistic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sophistic) gobbledegook (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gobbledegook)! From Merriam-Websters Online (http://www.webster.com):
Just how does something "appear" independent of senses? "Noumenon" sounds to me like another word for the Platonic "form" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms), which is a theoretical or idealistic construct. It exists only in the imagination, and has no impact on the real world. Paranormalists insist that "psi" phenonmenon have an impact on the real world; otherwise, nobody would care about their pretty ideas. Using "noumenal" to explain "paranormal" is merely a pre-technology version of abusing terms like "quantum vibrations" to confuse people (especially the fools that are tricked into parroting these non-explanations). A sure way to detect these con-jobs is when people spout rarely used terms like "noumenal" and "incommensurability", betting that their audience's eyes will glaze over in confusion and just nod their heads, unwilling to admit they don't know what's being said.
There are no scientific trials capable of "detecting" the "appleness" of an apple, either, as this is a mental construct that has no existence in the real world outside of the electrochemical connections that store and reinforce our mental concepts. (And if we ever learn to decode those connections, even this would become scientifically testable.)
However, as long as paranormalists claim that something is being done with this "noumenon" (e.g., "I read minds", "I predict the future", "I see objects that are miles away behind locked doors"), scientific tests can be designed and executed to test these claims. Anything else is just imagination, no more meaningful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And those who refuse to define something to test, preferring to ramble on about imaginary concepts, are just running away from the harsh light of reality, regardless of what obscure adjectives they preface it with.


It might seem deep and meaningful to you but it is Sophistic gobbledegook!, and no more meaningful than your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But a little more on this in my own time.

[Michael C]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

Of course you can. We do this all the time. Our lives would be in total messes if we couldn't count on spoken communication.

Imagine the following test:

- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We (the team of experimenters) write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and shouts it out so that person B can hear it
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.

If the two messages are identical, this shows that "shouting" has worked as a way of passing a sound message. If we repeat the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we can confidently say that we have proved that "shouting" works in this situation.

Now we change the experiment very slightly:

- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and sends it to person B via psi-esp.
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.

If the two messages were identical, this would show that psi-esp had worked as a way of passing a message. If we repeated the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we could confidently say that we had proved that psi-esp worked in this situation.

This is the sort of test that Randi proposes. He works out the details together with the claimant, so that both sides are satisfied that the conditions are fair. If the test really showed a success, he'd fork out the prize.

[maatorc]

..............
Now we change the experiment very slightly:
- Person A sits in a room.
- Person B sits in an adjacent room.
- We write down a message on a piece of paper and hand it to person A.
- Person A reads the message and sends it to person B via psi-esp.
- Person B writes down what he/she thinks the message is.
- We can now look at what person B has written and compare it with the original message.
If the two messages were identical, this would show that psi-esp had worked as a way of passing a message. If we repeated the experiment 100 times, with 100 successes, we could confidently say that we had proved that psi-esp worked in this situation.
This is the sort of test that Randi proposes. He works out the details together with the claimant, so that both sides are satisfied that the conditions are fair. If the test really showed a success, he'd fork out the prize.

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

[Michael C]

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

Precisely. We can argue that nothing is provable in the strict sense of the term. We can devise tests that, if they succeed, give very strong evidence of something, be it quantum phenomena, psi-esp or whatever. All the tests that Randi has already done are of this type. In the protocol both parties agree on what result would give sufficiently strong evidence. If the result of the test is at least as good as this pre-agreed value, Randi pays the million.

[Jekyll]

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.
Just as me shouting round the corner that I'm coming in allow people to infer but not prove that I can talk.

Psi-esp is not in a privileged position, if it exists it would be no harder to infer than anything else.

[jeffq]

If someone sends you a visual or sound message you cannot prove it to a third party who did not participate in it.

... and concerning the results of Michael C's tests:

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.

No, it doesn't infer, it implies. A collection of events may have implications, but an observer must be involved or observational tool be used to generate inferences from this collection. A sounder and and more intellectually honest response would have been "I infer that psi-esp exists from the test results." But that's beside the point.

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking our chains. Anyone who relies on an argument that 100 successes of 100 trials is only implication, but believes that personal testimony cannot be refuted, is either irretrievably delusional, too emotionally invested in the fantasy ever to see reason, or simply having fun at the expense of rational beings. Any rational person would be compelled to investigate and establish an explanation for something that happens 100 times out of 100, whether it is the putative phenomemon or an undiscovered methodological error. There are many reasonable, appropriate ways to challenge a 100-for-100 test, but merely dismissing it as suggestive is transparently disingenuous.

Finally...

It might seem deep and meaningful to you but it is Sophistic gobbledegook!, and no more meaningful than your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But a little more on this in my own time.

Yes, of course. First, simply deny the meaning without providing a rationale. Then, go back to the well of meaningless or deliberately confused juxtapositions of philosophical and pseudoscientific terminology to compose another eye-glazing missive. If you do this often enough, the other side will tire of picking apart the illogic, and you can declare victory by endurance, in classic medieval fashion. If they continue to riposte with rationality at every turn, you can be proud that you are "carrying on the fight" for paranormality. Either way, you need never admit that the Emperor has no clothes.

I can only feel sad that so many people find this kind of diversion worthwhile. How much more could the human race accomplish if we could just get past our craving for these fantasies? You'd think that the Million Dollar Prize would help squeeze the irrationality out of us, but humans are so endlessly inventive in finding ways to avoid good ideas. :(

[steenkh]

You’re merely restating my point: the Challenge fails to live up to the most superior form of evidence gathering and testing: classical scientific methodology. Anything short of that is questionable at best. And you are correct that it is about wagering/gambling. Gosh it’s so unprofessional and bias it’s ridiculous.
You have lost me here: We agree that the test has another purpose than scientific research, but yet you assert that for some reason the test should use the standards of scientific research. Why? And the tests strike me as being very professional in their purpose to give an unequivocal answer to the question whether the claimants can perform as they claim or not. Can you explain why they are unprofessional and biased?

But alas, no need for either of us to give a shout out. Bringing up the question was a shout out in and of itself. As you can see, we are met with crickets. But anyone credentialed is still encouraged to speak up.
The best way to get credentialed scientists to speak up would be to make new thread for the purpose. I told you to do that yourself, and then you can judge if the call is met crickets.

Well of course he isn’t. What he’s doing can’t live up to the high standards of disciplined, professional scientific standards of collecting evidence. So the fact that he implores scientists only here and there, or in an untrained manner, limits the credibility of his testing outcomes.
Randi is a professional in deception and countering deception. As such, he is considerably better trained than most credentialed researchers. This knowledge is employed in order to resolve a wager that is worth one million dollar. Can you please explain in what way this is being conducted unprofessionally, and in which cases you believe more professional scientific standards would have resulted in a different result?

Listen more carefully: I acknowledged at the onset that some scientists won’t and have not “completely ignored him“. What I’ve said is that the scientific community en masse will not take his procedures/outcomes seriously.
And I said that those scientists who did come out of their ivory tower would produce the necessary evidence that can be accepted by the scientific community as such. This is positive a side effect of a successful outcome of the MDC. The MDC has not been created to produce scientific results in itself.

As you pointed out, one piece of evidence for this is that his work will not be published in any esteemed journals, for example. There is a larger problem than his alleged findings turning heads … he is met with the problem of many clinicians not trusting how he arrived at his results.
Why is that a problem? He is not producing results for anybody: he is just putting up a wager that people who claim paranormal powers cannot do what they claim.

Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings.
What findings?

There were all kinds of problems with the Jak Keeran set up (and w other proposed tests of his). It is sloppy to invite a layperson to propose objective testing conditions,
Who are you thinking of? Jak himself?

and equally sloppy to invite oneself or representee's from one’s biased camp to amen it.
This is not scientific test, or perhaps you have not really got this point yet?

You have know idea how laughable this is in the clinical field. I must have overlooked the scientists you were pointing to in this case example … whom exactly?
From post 16 in the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1151408&postcount=16):
"Professor James Alcock, PhD, C.Psych.
Department of Psychology
Glendon College, York University
Toronto"

Come again? What are you calling "the most positive result" … and why?
From numerous papers on parapsychology and homoeopathy. I call it the most positive result, because it is the most positive result.

[babbits]

Hi, hello, here's my first post:

I think some of you guys are making this unnecessarily complex.

Suppose you are a reporter called to a press meeting. at 4:00 p.m. where I tell you I uniquely have a secret power and can detect messages sent by a spirit being in a parallel universe. To prove this, I announce that even as we speak, a previously-undetected meteor is approaching Mars. I ask you to 'mark my words', and the time at which they were uttered. Since spirits, except the carbohydrate types, are not detectable by direct or extended sense perception, I think we could agree that such an ability on my part, if it existed, would be 'paranormal'.

The 11-o'clock news announces a scientific observation made the previous night was sent to astronomers, peers of the observer, along with the usual request to confirm the observation.

There are at least two possible explanations of my prodigious feat of prognostication:

1. Para-normal, or 'unscientific', meaning nothing in science so far can explain my perception

2. Normal, or 'scientific'. I could have been in contact with one of the astronomers, or tapped into their transmissions, and called the press before the astronomers made their public announcement.

Without further information, logically speaking, either, or neither, or both explanations could be true.

But on the principle of parsimony, it is more likely that no paranormal talent is at work. You can explain my knowledge a number of ways, without resorting to extra-scientific means.

What debunkers (like the Great Randi) have done in the past is show a normal cause for an event for which a paranormal cause had been claimed.

All the million-dollar challenge says, as I see it, is: If I can create the event

in conditions that would prevent me from having a normal source for my knowledge
and
if I don't make a bunch of false predictions, but I do make at least one true predictions
I get the million bucks.

N'est-ce pas?

[maatorc]

... and concerning the results of Michael C's tests:
No, it doesn't infer, it implies. A collection of events may have implications, but an observer must be involved or observational tool be used to generate inferences from this collection. A sounder and and more intellectually honest response would have been "I infer that psi-esp exists from the test results." But that's beside the point. Come on, folks. This person is just jerking our chains. Anyone who relies on an argument that 100 successes of 100 trials is only implication, but believes that personal testimony cannot be refuted, is either irretrievably delusional, too emotionally invested in the fantasy ever to see reason, or simply having fun at the expense of rational beings. Any rational person would be compelled to investigate and establish an explanation for something that happens 100 times out of 100, whether it is the putative phenomemon or an undiscovered methodological error. There are many reasonable, appropriate ways to challenge a 100-for-100 test, but merely dismissing it as suggestive is transparently disingenuous.Finally...Yes, of course. First, simply deny the meaning without providing a rationale. Then, go back to the well of meaningless or deliberately confused juxtapositions of philosophical and pseudoscientific terminology to compose another eye-glazing missive. If you do this often enough, the other side will tire of picking apart the illogic, and you can declare victory by endurance, in classic medieval fashion. If they continue to riposte with rationality at every turn, you can be proud that you are "carrying on the fight" for paranormality. Either way, you need never admit that the Emperor has no clothes.I can only feel sad that so many people find this kind of diversion worthwhile. How much more could the human race accomplish if we could just get past our craving for these fantasies? You'd think that the Million Dollar Prize would help squeeze the irrationality out of us, but humans are so endlessly inventive in finding ways to avoid good ideas. :(

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking your chains: He knows what I mean but is just trying to confuse you with his pretentious superficial academic style so that you will not dare challenge him.

My use of the terms phenomena and noumena does not conflict with classical literary usage and in fact are quite straight forward and relatively simple, and the concepts are not obscure and contradictory as he would have you all believe. He is good at doing what he says others do.

[jeffq]

Come on, folks. This person is just jerking your chains: He knows what I mean but is just trying to confuse you with his pretentious superficial academic style so that you will not dare challenge him.

Ah, now it's "I know you are, but what am I?" responses. I've made my point — that any description of paranormality of interest in this world involves an effect that can be measured, no matter how you try to explain it away. Your continued attempts to confuse the issue can only provide the hollow satisfaction of having the last word, regardless of its merit. But if this is so important to you, be my guest.

By the way, everyone, please forgive my error above. I meant the "Million Dollar Challenge", not the "Million Dollar Prize". I'm afraid that the effort involved in writing in my "pretentious superficial academic style" drained too much blood from my feeble brain. :blush:

[maatorc]

......any description of paranormality of interest in this world involves an effect that can be measured,......

I do not want the last word; it is not a game I play.

Can you give an example of the above?

[ChristineR]

It comes down to this: if you don't like the MDC, simply get yourself a million dollars and set up your own prize. There are many distinguished scientific prizes out there, and yours can demand rigorous scientific testing. If it's a good enough idea you should be able to convince others to give you the million, as Randi did. The very fact that the prize exists and has been built up over the years by countless small and a few large donations proves that it is of interest and value to many people.

[ProbeX]

I've known a few scientists and read a fair bit about scientific methodology, and nothing I have ever encountered leads me to believe any decent scientist will ignore a clear-cut conclusion just because it was measured with a degree of imprecision.

I suspect you've seen scientists reject studies where the lack of precision was large enough relative to the measured effect to make the study worthless, and mistakenly generalised to the cargo cult conclusion that fine precision is necessary for it's own sake before a scientists will take a result seriously.That's just incorrect.

You claim to have known “few” scientists and have done a little reading. That’s fine. You (and another poster) seem not to understand that so-called precision of measurement/calculations is not the only aspect involved in creating a viable test/ test outcome. The environment and attitude of all involved can render so-called empirical results, useless. This is especially true where human testing is involved. It takes a viable context, which is largely absent with the MDC … starting with the flagrant lack of adherence to one of the very first scientific tenets of testing human subjects: biased parties (from either side) - those who stand to make obvious profit or loss from the outcome of test subjects’ results - shall play no rule in human testing procedures.

One other thing (reverting to your first point): a call has been put out for any scientist on this site - not someone claiming to know a few scientists - to refute my general point about the MDC lacking reasonable objectivity, and by extension, lacking overall viability. So far I hear crickets. It’s perfectly OK for you or some others to view the rigors of science as pesky and uptight … that is a typical layperson’s position - many hardcore skeptics and extreme “believers” alike, tend to fall prey to this uninformed thinking.

[ProbeX]

You have lost me here: We agree that the test has another purpose than scientific research, but yet you assert that for some reason the test should use the standards of scientific research. Why?
Sorry, you lost me: what exactly did we agree is the other purpose of the test?

No, I am not saying that the test should conform to the standards of research (although that would certainly represent considerable forethought). The testing procedure should conform to the standards of the objective clinical/scientific testing of human beings. For a primer as to why, please refer to my previous post to Kevin Lowe.

And the tests strike me as being very professional in their purpose to give an unequivocal answer to the question whether the claimants can perform as they claim or not. How does it strike you as professional in this purpose?

Can you explain why they are unprofessional and biased?Again, please refer to the above post, for one of the reasons.

The best way to get credentialed scientists to speak up would be to make new thread for the purpose. I told you to do that yourself, and then you can judge if the call is met crickets.Never said or implied that my purpose was to create the best way of capturing their attention. If that were the case you’d have been asked to go offline and find them as they wandered around at the termination of a symposium. I was making the simple, curious observation that no one - and there have likely many viewers - visiting this thread, have stepped up to refute me, or to support what your contrary claims are re: the invalidity of Randi’s approach.

Randi is a professional in deception and countering deception. As such, he is considerably better trained than most credentialed researchers
Hahahahahahahaha … ha. Evidence of this claim please? Where are your many details and examples to back such a wildly presumptuous blanket statement?

Yes, he is trained in sleight of hand. And yes, he’s good at deception. Another reason he should have no part in so-called objective tests. True objective testing is the domain of professional, credentialed scientists, who generally do not publically profit off of deception, and who don’t announce an adversarial stance as a test conductor.

. This knowledge is employed in order to resolve a wager that is worth one million dollar. Can you please explain in what way this is being conducted unprofessionally, and in which cases you believe more professional scientific standards would have resulted in a different result?Rule # 2 (protocol):

“In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend.”

… In human performance testing, this is extremely unprofessional. There would have to be a 3rd party representative instead, who is neutral and not any of the following:

adversarial, in support of, or acting on behalf of, the adversary in any way (while conducting any aspect of a test).

The presence of any such person can interfere with the actual performance of the subject. In the presence of an adversary, a subject can easily feel intimidated and therefore is at high risk (as proven by a huge body of research) for under-performing - or outright failing to demonstrate - whatever gift s/he claims to have. “Performance anxiety” is real, and extends beyond the bedroom, you see. “Test anxiety” is the specific form involved here. As long as the test isn’t controlled for this, the outcome is laughable. There is no way to confidently measure results in such conditions. Pure and simple.

… More to come.

[ProbeX]

And I said that those scientists who did come out of their ivory tower would produce the necessary evidence that can be accepted by the scientific community as such. This is positive a side effect of a successful outcome of the MDC. The MDC has not been created to produce scientific results in itself.
How have you reached such a presumptuous conclusion? You’re saying a flawed, biased piece of pseudoscience from a trained liar and gambler with an agenda is supposed to inspire a competent, seasoned scientist? The context alone is so questionable ... Laughable. It’s the other way around. Randi could learn a lot from disciplined scientific methodology.

He is not producing results for anybody: he is just putting up a wager that people who claim paranormal powers cannot do what they claim.
We, the public, can’t know for sure. I don’t trust an entertainer with a big reputation at stake, any more than I’d trust a professional psychic. This adversarial man is overseeing the entire procedure, regardless of what proposal is accepted and on what terms. It is he - not neutral parties - who ultimately “weighs in” on alleged results. Randi has a motive for potentially obscuring or denying even a hint of a positive result - it fortifies his reputation; keeps him in the public eye; a “hero” for (hardcore) skeptics. And since he’s a magician (professional lying entertainer), he can turn the tables and obfuscate or confiscate results that are questionable as positive. His very own bias may cause him to overlook positive evidence that a more neutral party might note. He insists on procedures being run in his environment. That too, should be left to someone who isn’t gambling, standing to lose his sponsors'/follower's monetary contributions. Geez this is so obvious I don’t quite understand why people don’t see it. Also, skepticism is healthy, but I’m not about to unload my critical thinking to put all my faith in a celebrity mascot (outside of the reasons listed above).

I had said: Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings. You then asked What findings? The answer is same as the above, John Q Public would never know what mistakes Randi might have missed (assuming someone takes the test), because Randi has made himself immune to neutral 3rd party oversight.

As for Jak et.al: it’s quite clear that the correspondence of the applicants Randi chooses to publish, appear problematic. Randi has made a smart move in setting up the MDC from the standpoint of securing his skeptical reputation. One aspect is his posting correspondence - in a controlled manner - of those applicants who appear less than savvy … or outright insane or witless, at times. There’s no way for me to know what he isn’t showing us. I respect him as a magician and he’s quite smart, but I can’t take his procedures on a faith basis.
This is not scientific test, or perhaps you have not really got this point yet?
Yes: it is quite clear that the MDC isn’t a scientific test, it is a pseudo-scientific one (which I’ve stated several times now). It therefore fails to meet the most viable standard for the gathering of objective evidence (or lack thereof). That is the major point.

Thanks for offering that scientist’s name/statement. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to change the bare facts of the unprofessional nature of the Challenge itself.

OK. I said: … Also, understand, “more research is needed” is sine qua non. It is another way of saying the findings need to be verified. You replied: I know: but this is the most positive result that is ever gained from research into the paranormal.

… and even after your comment on homeopathy,etc., I still don’t get what specific research you’re upholding to qualify as “positive” … Homeopathy as a "science" was already debunked some time ago, by trained scientists.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You claim to have known “few” scientists and have done a little reading. That’s fine. You (and another poster) seem not to understand that so-called precision of measurement/calculations is not the only aspect involved in creating a viable test/ test outcome. The environment and attitude of all involved can render so-called empirical results, useless. This is especially true where human testing is involved. It takes a viable context, which is largely absent with the MDC … starting with the flagrant lack of adherence to one of the very first scientific tenets of testing human subjects: biased parties (from either side) - those who stand to make obvious profit or loss from the outcome of test subjects’ results - shall play no rule in human testing procedures.

Suppose you choose 100 images, Maatorc sends them to me (from a suburb away) via psi-esp, and I sketch them accurately with a 100% hit rate. Assume all known means of non-psi-esp communication have been ruled out (I am in a sealed room in a Faraday cage).

So we document all this meticulously, we get the million, and then in your world scientists just say "What a silly experiment! Randi was present, and he stood to lose his prize money if you won! Thus that is not a viable test!".

As I said, I know some scientists and I think your view is plain crazy.


One other thing (reverting to your first point): a call has been put out for any scientist on this site - not someone claiming to know a few scientists - to refute my general point about the MDC lacking reasonable objectivity, and by extension, lacking overall viability. So far I hear crickets. It’s perfectly OK for you or some others to view the rigors of science as pesky and uptight … that is a typical layperson’s position - many hardcore skeptics and extreme “believers” alike, tend to fall prey to this uninformed thinking.

I notice that you aren't claiming to have a PhD in science and a research career yourself.

So I don't think you get to claim victory just because no working scientist has come along to personally contradict you yet. If you get to play that game, then I get to do it too. I say I win if no working scientist comes along to contradict me.

So far I hear crickets. I guess that means I must be right! :rolleyes: Also unless an astrophysicist shows up in this specific thread to contradict me, the moon is made of cheese.

[babbits]

In this thread much has been made of 'scientists', 'people who know scientists', etc, and who is qualified to judge a procedure and the associated claims.

But this is not the point. We all know, sadly, that many people who undoubtedly have a claim to the name of 'scientist' have published some highly 'unscientific' work -- and walked away, counting the cash.

The real point is, does the experiment conform to the scientific method. This is something that any reasonable person can decide, if the information about the test/tests methods are available.

Let's suppose that a person, X, claims to have performed a paranormal act, citing some knowledge or other physical effect as proof, and claiming that no 'normal' behavior could have produced the result.

Let's suppose that some person, Y, claims that the result could have been produced by some normal behavior.

Surely the onus is on the one making the paranormal claims to prove that the result could not have been produced by normal means.

e.g. I have a road accident. I am facing a STOP sign. I run over a pedestrian who was crossing at the intersection. I can claim that the pedestrian appeared 'out of nowhere', even though this seems unlikely, based on ordinary human experience.

The magistrate cannot prove that the victim did not appear 'out of nowhere'; but that is not required of him/her. What is required is that the person claiming the paranormal, 'out of nowhere', theory prove his/her point.

[steenkh]

Sorry, you lost me: what exactly did we agree is the other purpose of the test?
I thought you agreed that the purpose of the MDC was to show that people who claim paranormal powers cannot deliver on that claim.

The testing procedure should conform to the standards of the objective clinical/scientific testing of human beings. For a primer as to why, please refer to my previous post to Kevin Lowe.
In that post you wrote:
It takes a viable context, which is largely absent with the MDC … starting with the flagrant lack of adherence to one of the very first scientific tenets of testing human subjects: biased parties (from either side) - those who stand to make obvious profit or loss from the outcome of test subjects’ results - shall play no rule in human testing procedures.
The JREF has usually tried to recruit testers that did not have a stake in the result of the test, like Jim Alcock. Or are you claiming that Jim Alcock would have compromised the test? Exactly who should conduct a test of JAK Keeran? Besides, according to you, JAK Keeran himself would not be allowed to be part of the procedures, because he has clear interests in a certain outcome. Your position is laudable, but somewhat impractical.

How does it strike you as professional in this purpose?
The test procedures are usually beyond reproach, as is amply demonstrated through the discussions on this board, where you are more or less the only one claiming that the JREF is unprofessional.

I was making the simple, curious observation that no one - and there have likely many viewers - visiting this thread, have stepped up to refute me, or to support what your contrary claims are re: the invalidity of Randi’s approach.
You are right, this thread has not generated a lot of interest. In the same vein, I have not seen a lot of support for your position, nor criticism of mine.

Hahahahahahahaha … ha. Evidence of this claim please? Where are your many details and examples to back such a wildly presumptuous blanket statement?
I cannot imagine a more qualified professional for this kind of testing than a trained magician. On the conmtrary, normal scientists seem to be very susceptible to fraud and delusion, witness the highly qualified scientists who validated Uri Geller as the real thing.

Yes, he is trained in sleight of hand. And yes, he’s good at deception. Another reason he should have no part in so-called objective tests.
He is actually not a part of the tests made for the MDC. He only approves the protocol and pays the prize money.

… In human performance testing, this is extremely unprofessional. There would have to be a 3rd party representative instead, who is neutral and not any of the following:

Is this your best shot? I wonder how many real scientific tests you will find that a third party is present.

“Performance anxiety” is real, and extends beyond the bedroom, you see. “Test anxiety” is the specific form involved here. As long as the test isn’t controlled for this, the outcome is laughable.
The JREF has emphasized that the tests must always be preceded by a blank test with no controls so that the claimant can confirm that his powers have not failed him. Beyond that, I have never seen a claimant complain about the presence or attitude of the testers. On the contrary, when claimants have spoken about their failures they have always found other excuses.

How have you reached such a presumptuous conclusion? You’re saying a flawed, biased piece of pseudoscience from a trained liar and gambler with an agenda is supposed to inspire a competent, seasoned scientist?
Gambler? Pseudoscience? I thought it was quite clear that it was not science. Why should it be pseudoscience? I would imagine that the competent, seasoned scientists who actually conduct the tests, like Jim Alcock, would be inspired by the results? On what grounds would you argue that such a scientist would dismiss his own results and not start a proper scientific investigation?

We, the public, can’t know for sure. I don’t trust an entertainer with a big reputation at stake, any more than I’d trust a professional psychic.
I trust that if somebody runs with a million dollars, he or she must have done something quite extraordinary. If you think that the public would not take notice, you are living in a fantasy world.

This adversarial man is overseeing the entire procedure, regardless of what proposal is accepted and on what terms. It is he - not neutral parties - who ultimately “weighs in” on alleged results.
The protocol is constructed in such a way that there is no "weighing in" of the results. In this way, the claimant is not able to dispute the results. Can you point to a protocol where judging is involved?

Randi has a motive for potentially obscuring or denying even a hint of a positive result
He has the motive, but not the means: the protocols are constructed to make it impossible.

I had said: Unfortunately, due to Randi's lack of disciplined scientific training, he might have made sundry mistakes in collecting or evaluating his alleged findings. You then asked What findings? The answer is same as the above, John Q Public would never know what mistakes Randi might have missed (assuming someone takes the test), because Randi has made himself immune to neutral 3rd party oversight.
I still ask "what findings". I am not aware that the MDC produces "findings". It can only produce winners or losers of the challenge.

There’s no way for me to know what he isn’t showing us. I respect him as a magician and he’s quite smart, but I can’t take his procedures on a faith basis.
I am sure that there will be many lawyers who will take up the case of a slighted claimant in order to get a share of the million dollars.

Thanks for offering that scientist’s name/statement. Unfortunately, it’s not enough to change the bare facts of the unprofessional nature of the Challenge itself.
It is certainly clear that bare facts will not be able to sway your opinion.

… and even after your comment on homeopathy,etc., I still don’t get what specific research you’re upholding to qualify as “positive” … Homeopathy as a "science" was already debunked some time ago, by trained scientists.
I know, but the same can be said of parapsychology, and alien abductions, yet there are still professional trained scientists working in these fields, trying to make their dreams real. And they do not get positive results.

[RemieV]

Randi is not usually even present during Challenge tests. His presence is unnecessary. He is not a judge. There is no judging. Test results are self-evident.

[maatorc]

Suppose you choose 100 images, (M)maatorc sends them to me (from a suburb away) via psi-esp, and I sketch them accurately with a 100% hit rate. Assume all known means of non-psi-esp communication have been ruled out (I am in a sealed room in a Faraday cage).

Leave me out of your discussion.

You have no idea whether I 'can' or 'cannot', or whether I am or am not claiming to be able to do what you say.

If I 'can' I will not because it will demean and trivialise the ability.

If I 'cannot' I will not because it is undecideable under the MDC protocols.

[sthomson]

If I 'can' I will not because it will demean and trivialise the ability.

Does performing medical trials demean medicine?

Does stress-testing materials demean civil engineering?

If you 'can', why is it demeaning to test the limits of your abilities?

[maatorc]

If you 'can', why is it demeaning to test the limits of your abilities?

I have not said I 'can'.

In the context of the particular psi-esp conscious faculty, to which you are referring, it is the self imposed discipline of those who 'can'.

They have no interest in any public display to indulge those who deny the possibility of what they can do, and who by definition have no way of proving or disproving the truth or falsity of psi-esp.

All the talk about fame and fortune through the JREF MDC is of no interest to them whatsoever, and it would breach their code.

[Erin]

Darat,

I’m new and just finding my way around with questions popping up left right and centre as I go. I had been pondering similar questions of my own which have also probably already been asked. Your post was very helpful.

[steenkh]

Apparently, real psychics are all connected through the mind, because one and all do not wish to have their marvellous powers investigated.

[babbits]

The trouble with a lot of supernormal phenomena is that the practitioners try to remove all test conditions. Below is a true example.

A medium, who had produced impressive results, was asked why the seance had to take place in a darkened room. Answer: the spirits would not enter if light were present.

Then it was proposed that the light not be turned on until the spirit were present and had been materialized using ectoplasm from the medium's body. Answer: The medium would be in danger, since the ectoplasm would rush back into her body too quickly, if touched by light, and this could kill her.

Then infra-red was proposed. Answer: It is also light, so infra-red is not acceptable, either.

Similarly, the medium rejected all other tests proposed to determine if the phenomena claimed by the medium were real.

In this case, although the seance was given in the customer's house, the medium controlled the conditions.

In the case of the MDC, the conditions would be controlled by other than the practiioner.

[Michael C]

TIn the case of the MDC, the conditions would be controlled by other than the practiioner.

In the case of the MDC, the conditions must be agreed upon by both the practitioner and the JREF. Many applications never get to the stage of a first test because the two parties don't manage to come to an agreement.

It's not a case of the JREF proposing impossible conditions: the JREF tries to do everything possible to create a fair situation where the applicant can show their powers. The problems arise because the JREF is careful not to allow any possibility of cheating. The JREF will reject any test protocol where it might be possible for the applicant to use a non-paranormal method to arrive at the desired results.

[maatorc]

Psi-esp is a natural function of all human beings.
Some few have perfected a certain faculty underlying this function.
For most others it functions randomly.
Some high profile 'psychics' have a higher than general unfoldment of it.
Conscious denial of it will generally guarantee its suppression in the individual.
In the context of the MDC, it cannot be materially measured or proven.
The MDC is of no interest to those who have perfected this faculty.
It is not that they are opposed to it; it simply lies outside their interest.
The perfected faculty underlying 'psi-esp' events is an identifying characteristic of a group of personalities constituting the inner directorate of a number of more accessible outer organizations.
These are historically associated with certain highly influential traditions in human affairs, such as the New Testament, the Troubadours, the Grail Legend, the Gothic Cathedral operation, and the Crusades.
More recently, another example is the Shakespeare-English renaissance.
In modern times a particularly successful and influential movement operated in the 20th. century, the true tradition of which continues semi-privately today.

[TheClaw]

Psi-esp is a natural function of all human beings.
The MDC is of no interest to those who have perfected this faculty.
It is not that they are opposed to it; it simply lies outside their interest.


Well, at least there's one thing we can tell now. Maatorc has not perfected psi-esp. Otherwise he would have no interest in this forum.

[maatorc]

Well, at least there's one thing we can tell now. Maatorc has not perfected psi-esp. Otherwise he would have no interest in this forum.

How mysteriously astute and psychically perceptive of you!

[chillzero]

Please keep threads in this section strictly on topic, and strictly on the topic of the Million Dollar Challenge. Split thread here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95962

[DMG]

It does strongly infer but not prove psi-esp.
And do those inferences constitute evidence? If so, the money is paid. The Challenge asks for evidence - not proof - which can then be further studied.

Actually I think this has been said many time this thread - are you ignoring it for a reason?

“In all cases, applicant will be required to perform a preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member or representative of the JREF staff can attend.”

… In human performance testing, this is extremely unprofessional. There would have to be a 3rd party representative instead, who is neutral and not any of the following:

adversarial, in support of, or acting on behalf of, the adversary in any way (while conducting any aspect of a test).

The presence of any such person can interfere with the actual performance of the subject. In the presence of an adversary, a subject can easily feel intimidated and therefore is at high risk (as proven by a huge body of research) for under-performing - or outright failing to demonstrate - whatever gift s/he claims to have. “Performance anxiety” is real, and extends beyond the bedroom, you see. “Test anxiety” is the specific form involved here. As long as the test isn’t controlled for this, the outcome is laughable. There is no way to confidently measure results in such conditions. Pure and simple.
Right - so the first psychic (or whatever) to have the cajones to overcome his performance anxiety will have some nice pocket change and maybe a little credibility. Problem solved.

I trust that if somebody runs with a million dollars, he or she must have done something quite extraordinary.
Indeed - even if it turned out to be mundane trickery.

If I 'can' I will not because it will demean and trivialise the ability. Yeah - I'm an artist and it's so demeaning to draw things for people.:rolleyes:

I have not said I 'can'.

In the context of the particular psi-esp conscious faculty, to which you are referring, it is the self imposed discipline of those who 'can'.

They have no interest in any public display to indulge those who deny the possibility of what they can do, and who by definition have no way of proving or disproving the truth or falsity of psi-esp.

All the talk about fame and fortune through the JREF MDC is of no interest to them whatsoever, and it would breach their code. What???? So why are you even here fighting the good fight then??? If you can't do it and the ones who can don't care to prove it (yeah right) then why do you bother here?

[babbits]

The presence of any such person can interfere with the actual performance of the subject.

This is one version of the "spirits will not enter the room if it is lighted" defense.

Others:

"The presence of a skeptic upsets the medium and interferes with his/her concentration; so only believers may attend the seance to attest to the medium's powers."

"We have to search everyone, removing celphones, and any object which may be a recording device, because such items would damage the ectoplasm."

[maatorc]

........
1... ...If you can't do it...
2... ...then why do you bother here?

1... I have not said I cannot.

2... It is really very simple.
I am merely pointing out something people like you will eventually be forced to accept, namely that the MDC will never have a proveable result of
JREF: evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
because it has no means of measuring such an event, any more than you could 'prove' that you held a particular 'thought', which is not even psi-esp.

[sthomson]

because it has no means of measuring such an event, any more than you could 'prove' that you held a particular 'thought', which is not even psi-esp.

Actually, with the scientific discoveries in the mechanisms of the human brain, I wouldn't be surprised if we COULD predict thoughts from fMRI data in the near future.

Anyway, maatorc, you're missing the point. You seem to think that we're looking for a way to test the noumenal fact of psi-esp (or whatever you call it), but really, the MDC is looking to test the phenomenal effects of ESP. If ESP has no phenomenal representation - if it has no physical or informational effect on its surroundings - then what's the point of it? How would I distinguish it from my own internal thoughts or delusions?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
because it has no means of measuring such an event, any more than you could 'prove' that you held a particular 'thought', which is not even psi-esp.
.......but really, the MDC is looking to test the phenomenal effects of ESP........

Can you give an example of such an effect?

[Gr8wight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
because it has no means of measuring such an event, any more than you could 'prove' that you held a particular 'thought', which is not even psi-esp.
Originally Posted by sthomson View Post
.......but really, the MDC is looking to test the phenomenal effects of ESP........


Can you give an example of such an effect?

No. That is the whole point. The Million Dollar Challenge is asking for an example of such an effect. No one to date has provided one. Does that mean ESP or PSI - or whatever you want to call it - doesn't exist? Of course not. It simply means its existence has not yet been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the rules of the challenge. We all agree that it will probably never be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the challenge rules. We simply disagree on the reasons why.

Still, the MDC manta remains: "show us...or go away."

[maatorc]

No. That is the whole point. The Million Dollar Challenge is asking for an example of such an effect. No one to date has provided one. Does that mean ESP or PSI - or whatever you want to call it - doesn't exist? Of course not. It simply means its existence has not yet been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the rules of the challenge. We all agree that it will probably never be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the challenge rules. We simply disagree on the reasons why.Still, the MDC manta remains: "show us...or go away."

The whole point is the MDC cannot identify or measure such an effect even where it does exist.

[Gr8wight]

The whole point is the MDC cannot identify or measure such an effect even where it does exist.

No, the whole point is that you are completely unable to explain how an "effect" can be unmeasurable, and still be an "effect." Anything that exists can be measured in some way. Name one thing that exists and is unable to be measured.

[maatorc]

No, the whole point is that you are completely unable to explain how an "effect" can be unmeasurable, and still be an "effect." Anything that exists can be measured in some way. Name one thing that exists and is unable to be measured.

A thought.

[steenkh]

A thought.
It can be recorded indirectly by asking the person what he was thinking of. He could lie of course, but there are means to counter that.

Psi-esp is much easier because it is not just any thought but usually comes with provable claims. If a psi-esp practitioner (I know you react negatively to the term "psychic") claims he can read the mind of another person, it is easy to compare what both of them claim were their thoughts.

Can you give a reason why the MDC cannot test such a claim? Or would insist that such a claim would not be representative of pis-esp?

[DMG]

The whole point is the MDC cannot identify or measure such an effect even where it does exist.
(bold mine)

But you said a test where psy powers performed better than chance would strongly infer the existence of said powers.

This seems a contradictory stance.

[petre]

A thought.

You cannot prove thoughts exist.

[sthomson]

Can you give an example of such an effect?

That's not my responsibility, but sure, I'll do it.

I sit in a locked room with no doors or windows, with a deck of cards. A psychic records whether I'm looking at a red card or a black card.

10 people bring 10 personal objects that have no identifying features. An objective recorder writes which object goes to which person. Someone who claims to have this particular ability should be able to match each object to each person.

Hell, if a psychic could tell me something personal about my past, like the color of my neighbor's dog, I'd consider that pretty freaking "phenomenal".

[Gr8wight]

A thought.

Incorrect. Scientists are able to use various imaging techniques to measure electro-chemical activity in the brain, and can observe that activity change as subjects are asked to think different thoughts. Try again.

[maatorc]

You cannot prove thoughts exist.

Actually or experientially?

[maatorc]

Incorrect. Scientists are able to use various imaging techniques to measure electro-chemical activity in the brain, and can observe that activity change as subjects are asked to think different thoughts. Try again.

The method you mention does not identify the thought.

[maatorc]

That's not my responsibility, but sure, I'll do it.
I sit in a locked room with no doors or windows, with a deck of cards. A psychic records whether I'm looking at a red card or a black card.
10 people bring 10 personal objects that have no identifying features. An objective recorder writes which object goes to which person. Someone who claims to have this particular ability should be able to match each object to each person.
Hell, if a psychic could tell me something personal about my past, like the color of my neighbor's dog, I'd consider that pretty freaking "phenomenal".

These effects do not measure the process.
The psychic-psi-esp process may operate but in itself is not measured.
The above would be generally convincing.
Note, though, the JREF-MDC presumption, and that of Mr. Randi, is that it is all deception, cold reading, and fraud.

[maatorc]

....But you said a test where psy powers performed better than chance would strongly infer the existence of said powers.
This seems a contradictory stance.

Measuring a process and studying its effects are not the same, and this is critical to this matter.

[Gr8wight]

The method you mention does not identify the thought.

I don't believe I used the word "identify" in my original question. We are not talking about identifying a thought, simply using some empirical method of measuring it. Demonstrating that it exists and is occurring at any given time. Scientists are doing that as we speak. Sorry, but I won't let you move the goal posts here. Try again.

Please name something that exists but cannot be measured.

[Gr8wight]

These effects do not measure the process.
The psychic-psi-esp process may operate but in itself is not measured.
The above would be generally convincing.
Note, though, the JREF-MDC presumption, and that of Mr. Randi, is that it is all deception, cold reading, and fraud.

Oh, wait, in this response you are more concerned with measurement, and not identification. You cannot have it both ways, maatorc. Try again.

[maatorc]

Oh, wait, in this response you are more concerned with measurement, and not identification. You cannot have it both ways, maatorc. Try again.

In the MDC you will need both.

[Kevin_Lowe]

In the MDC you will need both.

No.

[maatorc]

No.

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

[JoeEllison]

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

How is it possible to claim that it occurred, if it cannot be identified without a completely subjective experience?

[steenkh]

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?
In the case of the MDC, why should the psychic-psi-esp event be measured? Indentification would seem enough for the million dollars.

You have again failed in showing that the MDC cannot do what it sets out to do.

[maatorc]

In the case of the MDC, why should the psychic-psi-esp event be measured? Indentification would seem enough for the million dollars.
You have again failed in showing that the MDC cannot do what it sets out to do.

How would you identify such an such an event?

[JoeEllison]

How would you identify such an such an event?

How did you?

[maatorc]

How did you?

You did?
How?

[JoeEllison]

You did?
How?

I'm asking you. Why do you refuse to answer questions. Can you answer a question, or are you just lying to us?

[steenkh]

How would you identify such an such an event?How did you?You did?
How?
Evasion noted.

[sthomson]

These effects do not measure the process. The psychic-psi-esp process may operate but in itself is not measured.

If you control for cheating, then yes, they do. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time.

Note, though, the JREF-MDC presumption, and that of Mr. Randi, is that it is all deception, cold reading, and fraud.

Again, a test procedure can control for bias or cheating. I wonder why there have been no positive tests for psi-esp, when the test conditions are scientifically designed and controlled for cheating?

[petre]

You did?
How?

So have you given up on naming something that exists that is not measurable?

Thoughts (as you describe them) have been rejected, as there are some here that do not believe they exist apart from their measurable component.

[maatorc]

Why do you refuse to answer questions.

You have not asked any questions.

[maatorc]

1... So have you given up on naming something that exists that is not measurable?
2... Thoughts (as you describe them) have been rejected, as there are some here that do not believe they exist apart from their measurable component.

1... No: Noumena are not measurable by phenomena.

2... What measurable component?

[maatorc]

Evasion noted.

Very evasive of you.

[Gr8wight]

1... No: Noumena are not measurable by phenomena.

That's because the word "noumena" refers, by definition, to abstract philosophical concepts. Why can you not get it into your head that the instant your alleged PSI-ESP makes a prediction, it ceases, by defintion, to be noumenal in nature, and becomes, by definition, phenomenal in nature. So, if ESP exists in any way that allows predicitons to be made with any level of success beyond that of pure chance, it becomes phenomenal by definition. And if it does not, and remains purely noumenal, then what is to separate it from imagination? Just because you are able to conceive of (imagine) a thing does not mean that thing necessarily exists.

[maatorc]

That's because the word "noumena" refers, by definition, to abstract philosophical concepts. Why can you not get it into your head that the instant your alleged PSI-ESP makes a prediction, it ceases, by defintion, to be noumenal in nature, and becomes, by definition, phenomenal in nature. So, if ESP exists in any way that allows predicitons to be made with any level of success beyond that of pure chance, it becomes phenomenal by definition. And if it does not, and remains purely noumenal, then what is to separate it from imagination? Just because you are able to conceive of (imagine) a thing does not mean that thing necessarily exists.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Noumena" The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. That which is perceived but not tangible. The philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon more-or-less synonymously with the phrase "...thing in itself..."

You have got it all wrong.

[GzuzKryzt]

:popcorn6

[nathan]

You have got it all wrong.
The brick noumenon -- the brick itself -- is inferable by brick phenomena. The collection of brick phenomena that we experience are unique and allow us to infer a brick noumenon (and no other noumenon).

Why is a psi-esp noumenon not inferable by psi-esp phenomena?

[Gr8wight]

You have got it all wrong.

No, I have not. I just simplified.

If the noumenal object does not have a phenomenal aspect, how is it possible to know that it exists? Again, I ask you (and I will phrase it in your silly philosophical language if you like), name one thing that has a noumenal aspect but does not have a phenomenal aspect. We have already ruled out a thought. Try again.

[Gr8wight]

The brick noumenon -- the brick itself -- is inferable by brick phenomena. The collection of brick phenomena that we experience are unique and allow us to infer a brick noumenon (and no other noumenon).

Why is a psi-esp noumenon not inferable by psi-esp phenomena?

Yes...

maatorc?

[Kevin_Lowe]

How is it possible to 'know' a psychic-psi-esp event occurs without identifying it and measuring it, if you do not experientially participate in it?

The MDC does not care whether you 'know' it or not.

The MDC does not care if you can identify it.

The MDC does not care if you can measure it.

The MDC does not care what you experientially participated in.

[sthomson]

The brick noumenon -- the brick itself -- is inferable by brick phenomena. The collection of brick phenomena that we experience are unique and allow us to infer a brick noumenon (and no other noumenon).

Why is a psi-esp noumenon not inferable by psi-esp phenomena?

Thanks. It's been a long time since I took "Intro to Philosophical Thought".

[maatorc]

If the noumenal object does not have a phenomenal aspect, how is it possible to know that it exists?

By personal realization as a strictly and exclusively mental event beyond all physical measure.

[maatorc]

Thanks. It's been a long time since I took "Intro to Philosophical Thought".

Regarding post 139 by 'nathan', and posts 140 and 141 by 'Gr8wight': Yes we can infer these things but not measure or prove them.

[Gr8wight]

Regarding post 139 by 'nathan', and posts 140 and 141 by 'Gr8wight': Yes we can infer these things but not measure or prove them.

Please explain how your usage of the word 'infer' differs from my usage of the word 'imagine.'

Then, please name one thing that has a noumenal aspect that does not have a phenomenal aspect. Any one thing. Please.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think Maatorc has successfully managed to distract attention from the core issue, which is his misunderstanding about the MDC.

Maatorc, do you now understand that it is possible to win the million dollar challenge with the superpower you have described? That there is absolutely nothing in the rules or the spirit of the MDC which would stop you doing so if you had this power?

[maatorc]

........Then, please name one thing that has a noumenal aspect that does not have a phenomenal aspect. Any one thing. Please.

Any strictly mental event, such as a thought.

[Dan O.]

So, we have a hypothetical psychic with all these amazing powers but they cannot be demonstrated. For instance, the psychic can read the mind of a test subject in another room but cannot disclose what was read because this would be phenomenal and psy powers don't allow that. Now we also have technology that can in essence read the thoughts of a subject connected to an EEG like machine. If the EEG machine were connected to the psychic it could read the psychics thoughts of the test subjects thoughts. So the psychic would not be abel to think about what the test subject was thinking. But he somehow still knows that he can and is reading the test subjects mind.

So what is it that a psychic can do?

[maatorc]

1... So, we have a hypothetical psychic with all these amazing powers but they cannot be demonstrated. For instance, the psychic can read the mind of a test subject in another room but cannot disclose what was read because this would be phenomenal and psy powers don't allow that.
2... Now we also have technology that can in essence read the thoughts of a subject connected to an EEG like machine. If the EEG machine were connected to the psychic it could read the psychics thoughts of the test subjects thoughts. So the psychic would not be abel to think about what the test subject was thinking. But he somehow still knows that he can and is reading the test subjects mind.So what is it that a psychic can do?

1... Nonsense, no one has said that.

2... Rubbish: How would you know what the the subject was thinking.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, do you now understand that it is possible to win the million dollar challenge with the superpower you have described? That there is absolutely nothing in the rules or the spirit of the MDC which would stop you doing so if you had this power?

[nathan]

Regarding post 139 by 'nathan', and posts 140 and 141 by 'Gr8wight': Yes we can infer these things but not measure or prove them.
By that view we end up with the impotent philosophy that nothing can be proven. That gets us nowhere.

So, are you of the opinion that bricks cannot be proven to exist?

[DMG]

Regarding post 139 by 'nathan', and posts 140 and 141 by 'Gr8wight': Yes we can infer these things but not measure or prove them.
So have these powers "strongly inferred" just once for Randi and YOU WIN. We all already agree that winning the MDC doesn't constitute proof and doesn't claim or need to either, so c'mon already with the inferring as opposed to asserting.

[petre]

Then, please name one thing that has a noumenal aspect that does not have a phenomenal aspect. Any one thing. Please.

It seems he cannot provide an adequate example. I tried asking before in the thread that is more appropriate for this topic and got no answer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3069637&postcount=80

[Dan O.]

1... Nonsense, no one has said that.
This is a hypothetical. If you want to provide an alternate super power for the psychic I'll work that into another example.

2... Rubbish: How would you know what the the subject was thinking.
The current state of the technology is that we can measure electrical activity in various parts of the brain and in particular have learned to interpret the signature of "recognition" when the test subject thinks about something they've thought about before. This has been offered as legal evidence to show if a defendant was or was not familiar with a crime scene.

[RemieV]

This is a hypothetical. If you want to provide an alternate super power for the psychic I'll work that into another example.


The current state of the technology is that we can measure electrical activity in various parts of the brain and in particular have learned to interpret the signature of "recognition" when the test subject thinks about something they've thought about before. This has been offered as legal evidence to show if a defendant was or was not familiar with a crime scene.

If I read the article correctly, this isn't precisely true. fMRIs have not yet been used in court cases to my knowledge, though if you have opposing evidence, I'd love to see it. At this point, the accuracy rate of fMRIs for spotting a lie is 90%. Now, to some people that may seem great, but to me it depends on whether that 10% is false positives or false negatives or just junk data. Of course, the article I read is from a year ago. Perhaps a whole lot has changed!

http://www.livescience.com/health/060129_brain_lie.html

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by Gr8wight View Post
Then, please name one thing that has a noumenal aspect that does not have a phenomenal aspect. Any one thing. Please.
It seems he cannot provide an adequate example. I tried asking before in the thread that is more appropriate for this topic and got no answer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3069637&postcount=80

I have answered it before: Any strictly and exclusively mental event, such as a thought.

[maatorc]

This is a hypothetical. If you want to provide an alternate super power for the psychic I'll work that into another example.
The current state of the technology is that we can measure electrical activity in various parts of the brain and in particular have learned to interpret the signature of "recognition" when the test subject thinks about something they've thought about before. This has been offered as legal evidence to show if a defendant was or was not familiar with a crime scene.

This is common knowledge, and is interesting, but is a long way, and in this context infinitely far away, from actually 'reading' a thought.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Regarding post 139 by 'nathan', and posts 140 and 141 by 'Gr8wight': Yes we can infer these things but not measure or prove them.
By that view we end up with the impotent philosophy that nothing can be proven. That gets us nowhere. So, are you of the opinion that bricks cannot be proven to exist?

No, this is absolutely not what I have said or am saying.

[Dan O.]

If I read the article correctly, this isn't precisely true. fMRIs have not yet been used in court cases to my knowledge, though if you have opposing evidence, I'd love to see it. At this point, the accuracy rate of fMRIs for spotting a lie is 90%. Now, to some people that may seem great, but to me it depends on whether that 10% is false positives or false negatives or just junk data. Of course, the article I read is from a year ago. Perhaps a whole lot has changed!

http://www.livescience.com/health/060129_brain_lie.html


I believe this is the case I was remembering (though I may need a brain scan to be sure): http://www.scienceevidence.com/tags/fmri/
One controversial use of neuroscience is in lie detection, including a technology called “brain fingerprinting,” in which subjects are shown pictures of places or persons to test their brain wave activity in response. For example, if a person was shown a picture of a crime scene, in theory his brain wave response would vary depending upon whether he had been at the scene before. One of the most high profile examples is the case of Iowan Terry Harrington, convicted of a 1977 murder. After more than 20 years in prison, scientists administered “brain fingerprinting,” an electroencephalography (EEG) test of a brain wave called p300, which purported to test Harrington’s memory and to prove that he was innocent. The evidence reportedly caused a key prosecution witness to recant and admit his own guilt. The Iowa Supreme Court overturned Harrington’s conviction, though based on suppressed evidence not the brain scan. See Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Harrington Murder Conviction After 24 years (http://www.brainwavescience.com/IowaSupCourtPR.php).

[nathan]

No, this is absolutely not what I have said or am saying.
Then please clarify what is different about psi-esp such that it exhibits no phenonmena. If it helps, pick a particular supposed psi-esp to use as an example.

[maatorc]

Then please clarify what is different about psi-esp such that it exhibits no phenonmena. If it helps, pick a particular supposed psi-esp to use as an example.

See post 157.

[Dan O.]

If you are saying it's all in your head then we are in full agreement.

[maatorc]

If you are saying it's all in your head then we are in full agreement.

I accept you do not understand the subject.

[Paul2]

Maatorc, it furthers no purpose, teaching another about your ideas or otherwise, to tersely assert without any explanation, repetitious or not. You might as well not even post such replies - why bother?

[maatorc]

Maatorc, it furthers no purpose, teaching another about your ideas or otherwise, to tersely assert without any explanation, repetitious or not. You might as well not even post such replies - why bother?

I think the questioners have not read the thread, where the subject has been explored at length.
If you ask a specific question that has not already been addressed I will try to answer you.

[Paul2]

I think the questioners have not read the thread, where the subject has been explored at length.
If you ask a specific question that has not already been addressed I will try to answer you.Why don't you just give short, succinct answers to anyone who asks any question? Sure, arguments can go around in circles sometimes, but the proper response to that situation is to try to find a new way of answering what may be a same old question, but in a way that will break the circle and lead to a higher level of the argument, rather than just being cryptic.

[maatorc]

1... Why don't you just give short, succinct answers to anyone who asks any question?
2... Sure, arguments can go around in circles sometimes, but the proper response to that situation is to try to find a new way of answering what may be a same old question, but in a way that will break the circle and lead to a higher level of the argument, rather than just being cryptic.

1... Many questions do not lend themselves to short, succinct answers.

2... Do you have a case in point?

[nathan]

See post 157.

'I have answered it before: Any strictly and exclusively mental event, such as a thought.'

That is describing a non-psi-esp noumena (and shown to be false, 'thinking' does produce distinct detectable brain activity).

What does a psi-esp noumena do that imagination does not do? Or are you saying that imagination is the same as psi-esp. Could you clarify?

Once again, I think an example of a supposed psi-esp ability would help. Can you provide one to illuminate your argument?

[chillzero]

Guys, a gentle reminder that the discussion of psi-esp has already been split out to a new thread in General Skepticism. Please discuss the details of the topic there, and how it impacts the MDC here. Please keep this thread on topic.

[Paul2]

1... Many questions do not lend themselves to short, succinct answers.
Incorrect.












Do you now see the problem with your type of answer?

[maatorc]

Incorrect.Do you now see the problem with your type of answer?

NO.
This word game is over.

[Paul2]

NO.
This word game is over.I only gave you a taste of your own game.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, do you now understand that it is possible to win the million dollar challenge with the superpower you have described? That there is absolutely nothing in the rules or the spirit of the MDC which would stop you doing so if you had this power?

[maatorc]

1... Maatorc, do you now understand that it is possible to win the million dollar challenge with the superpower you have described?
2... That there is absolutely nothing in the rules or the spirit of the MDC which would stop you doing so if you had this power?

1... Yes, but the JREF would be paying for something it merely presumes to be the case.

2... I have not said I do or do not have this power. Those who have it will not challenge for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.

[nathan]

1... Yes, but the JREF would be paying for something it merely presumes to be the case.
Incorrect.
2... Those who have it will not challenge for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.
(Phenomenal) Evidence?

[steenkh]

1... Yes, but the JREF would be paying for something it merely presumes to be the case.
No. They will be paying if evidence can be presented, and you have not given reasons why evidence cannot be presented - if the claimants can perform as they claim.
2... I have not said I do or do not have this power. Those who have it will not challenge for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.
You have only stated why some who have this power will not take up the Challenge. You have not given reasons why each and every psi-esp expert in the entire world would not do so.

[chillzero]

If I need to split out any further posts that are not on topic to the MDC, this thread will be set to moderated status instead.

[maatorc]

Quote: maatorc: ... I have not said I do or do not have this power. Those who have it will not challenge for the reasons I have repeatedly stated.
[QUOTE]You have only stated why some who have this power will not take up the Challenge. You have not given reasons why each and every psi-esp expert in the entire world would not do so.

I have, but you either did not see it or you did not want to see it: Read my posts.

[steenkh]

I have, but you either did not see it or you did not want to see it: Read my posts.
You have in fact answered some of the outstanding questions, so I searched through your posts from the past two weeks, but I only came up with this lame answer:
It is known and accepted in their circles as contrary to their ethical position vis-a-vis the true nature and purpose of the faculty they have perfected which underlies their conscious control and direction of psychic events.
"It is known and accepted in their circles" is hardly covering each and every psi-esp expert in the entire world! Surely you can do better than that!

[sthomson]

maatorc: I have described several tests for "psi-esp" that I feel would be acceptable to Randi as potential winners of the MDC. Please explain why you feel these do not constitute a test for "psi-esp". I'll describe one again below.

Test 1: Claimant is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper numbered 1 to 20 with a pen. Volunteer is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper and a pen. Observers with synchronised watches are in each room. Once a minute (or longer or shorter, depending on the claimant), the volunteer picks one card from a shuffled deck and records whether that card is red or black. On the same interval, the claimant records what he or she views as the color of the card. This test is repeated a set number of times until enough tests are completed to meet the required p value.

These exact tests were performed multiple times in the 1970s by many researchers and, barring situations where cheating or testing bias occurred, I cannot find any significant results.

[ProbeX]

Suppose you choose 100 images, Maatorc sends them to me (from a suburb away) via psi-esp, and I sketch them accurately with a 100% hit rate. Assume all known means of non-psi-esp communication have been ruled out (I am in a sealed room in a Faraday cage).

So we document all this meticulously, we get the million, and then in your world scientists just say "What a silly experiment! Randi was present, and he stood to lose his prize money if you won! Thus that is not a viable test!".

As I said, I know some scientists and I think your view is plain crazy.
Let’s say I’m not just a skeptic, but a famous skeptic. Let’s say you are a hypothetical self-proclaimed psychic (believer), and I set up the test above and claim that you sent me 100 images and the result was a 100% hit rate. Let’s say I claim and document my subject's behavior in a space that was screened against EM (and by the way, one couldn’t assume the a sealed room including a Faraday Cage qualifies as an envirronm. that guards against “all known means” of non-psi communication. Overlooking even this shows a lack of objectivity of approach to testing.

What, specifically, do you mean by meticulous documentation? Who would be the one documenting all this, and what would the method look like? Would there be a camera in this enclosed room, or how would the subject be monitored? Would the subject being tested in performance be in his or her adversary's lab at the time? You'd need to answer these questions for me to begin to get a better sense for how you would find the experiment, as you present it, viable.

Forgiving the problem of an adversary involved in testing (which can't be forgiven), ... even if a self-proclaimed skeptic like Randi stated he witnessed, then documented, a 100% success in the study as you state it, it would hold very little weight in the world of science and human testing. It's possible an aging famous skeptic pulled a publicity stunt; was in collusion with my “subjects” and it was all a lie - a famous magician’s (professional liar’s) decision to cook up dramatic results. Even (seemingly) to his own detriment. Unless Randi is your bed partner (horrible thought) and even then, results allegedly gathered without the oversight of unbiased third party/s is not to be trusted - especially where gambling is involved, both financially and due to strong opinions for or against the focus of the tests. Randi fanaticism (faith) shouldn't be chosen over good sense. Can you have one of your scientist friends (the one or more involved in human performance testing), comment on this?

As for credentials: regardless of what my credentials are, this is an argument based on facts and ideas. As for crickets: this is not a paranormal or hair styling forum, where scientists are likely to be scarce if present at all), plus this forum does has a science forum. So the crickets present are more damning to your argument.

[ProbeX]

In this thread much has been made of 'scientists', 'people who know scientists', etc, and who is qualified to judge a procedure and the associated claims.

But this is not the point. We all know, sadly, that many people who undoubtedly have a claim to the name of 'scientist' have published some highly 'unscientific' work -- and walked away, counting the cash.

The real point is, does the experiment conform to the scientific method. This is something that any reasonable person can decide, if the information about the test/tests methods are available.
Yes, I agree there are people who claim shoddy science as the real thing. Happens all too frequently. But I’m speaking to scientific human testing methodology as used correctly.

No, actually it’s deceivingly difficult to declare an experiment well-conformed to scientific method without having an intermediate to advanced knowledge and/or direct experience with it.

[ProbeX]

Steenkh,

Will respond to what you said next.

[maatorc]

maatorc: I have described several tests for "psi-esp" that I feel would be acceptable to Randi as potential winners of the MDC. Please explain why you feel these do not constitute a test for "psi-esp". I'll describe one again below.
Test 1: Claimant is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper numbered 1 to 20 with a pen. Volunteer is placed in a closed, windowless room with a sheet of paper and a pen. Observers with synchronised watches are in each room. Once a minute (or longer or shorter, depending on the claimant), the volunteer picks one card from a shuffled deck and records whether that card is red or black. On the same interval, the claimant records what he or she views as the color of the card. This test is repeated a set number of times until enough tests are completed to meet the required p value.
These exact tests were performed multiple times in the 1970s by many researchers and, barring situations where cheating or testing bias occurred, I cannot find any significant results.

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.
The procedure is not actually testing the mental process of psi-esp, but is a recording of external evidence for or against it.
A psi-esp event is a mental experience of the practitioner, participant, or recipient. Most people claiming such experiences or abilities are unable to prove it, and to date observational tests cannot decide it.
If it is possible for someone to psychically communicate with you, and you are conscious, say visually or audibly, you cannot prove it happens.
Similarly, if you experience an event, say visually or audibly, beyond your normal material sensory range, such as remote viewing, you cannot prove you had this experience.
This problem is a two-way street: Anyone who does not experience psychic events, such as communications or remote viewing, cannot prove they cannot occur.
The two cognitive spheres accessible to us are incommensurable.
This is the fundamental and unavoidable limitation placed on phenomenal attempts to decide noumenal realities.

[Michael C]

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.

That's exactly what the MDC is there for: to test for psi-esp or other things considered to be paranormal. That's all.

[maatorc]

That's exactly what the MDC is there for: to test for psi-esp or other things considered to be paranormal. That's all.

That has been going on for decades.
It is old hat.
The methods used then are essentially those employed by the JREF now.
Nothing has changed.
Psi-esp cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.
There cannot technically be a successful claimant.
What then is the point of the MDC?

[steenkh]

That has been going on for decades.
It is old hat.
The methods used then are essentially those employed by the JREF now.
Nothing has changed.
That took a long time for you to figure out!

Psi-esp cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.
If the psi-esp practitioner can communicate to others what he/she is experiencing, this can be tested against reality or another communicated psi-esp experience. You may call it an indirect proof, but many proofs are indirect, but still valid.

There cannot technically be a successful claimant.
For what? Surely you are not speaking about the MDC, because it is abundantly clear if the claimant for the MDC can perform as he claims or not. After all, his claim must be formulated so that it is testable.

What then is the point of the MDC?
You have already been told many times before: it is to test if the claimants can perform as they claim they can. What eligible claim can you imagine that cannot be tested?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

Testing for psi-esp would be ample to win the million.

[Raptor Witness]

The rules are limitations for frauds. There is no need for "rules," if you can demonstrate power which takes the breath away, literally. I predict that Mr. Randi will find what he is looking for, and be left in the wake of the wave generated.

[sthomson]

The rules are limitations for frauds. There is no need for "rules," if you can demonstrate power which takes the breath away, literally. I predict that Mr. Randi will find what he is looking for, and be left in the wake of the wave generated.

Really? When? I mean, Randi's been doing this for a long time ... more than 30 years ... and he's not a young man any more ... so whomever has these powers that "takes the breath away, literally", they better hurry up ... or are you making some quip about death?

Gah, I hate all this cryptic mumbo jumbo.

[petre]

Yes, the example you give would be a test for psi-esp, but not actually a test of psi-esp.


So your main bone of contention is that the wording of the challenge is that "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" should be "...evidence for any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"?

[maatorc]

So your main bone of contention is that the wording of the challenge is that "...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" should be "...evidence for any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"?

The phenomenal methods of the MDC will never provide proof 'of' psi-esp.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maatorc, this has been explained to you repeatedly.

Testing for psi-esp would be ample to win the million.

[petre]

The phenomenal methods of the MDC will never provide proof 'of' psi-esp.

Perhaps a different parsing would relieve you of your concern. It is possible that one may read the challenge of the JREF and believe it says something like:

- If you believe in ghosts, and provide evidence of ghosts, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in dowsing, and provide evidence of dowsing, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in psi-esp, and provide evidence of psi-esp, we will pay you $1 million.
- etc.

This is not a correct interpretation. A more accurate reading is:
- Whatever you believe is unimportant to the challenge. Provide evidence of anything paranormal (you need not identify what it is) and we will pay you $1 million.

An applicant would NEVER need to provide evidence (much less proof) 'of' psi-esp to win the challenge. A successful test would give evidence only that 'something paranormal' had occurred, nothing more. They are not designed to illuminate any further than that.

[maatorc]

Perhaps a different parsing would relieve you of your concern. It is possible that one may read the challenge of the JREF and believe it says something like:
- If you believe in ghosts, and provide evidence of ghosts, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in dowsing, and provide evidence of dowsing, we will pay you $1 million.
- If you believe in psi-esp, and provide evidence of psi-esp, we will pay you $1 million.- etc.
This is not a correct interpretation. A more accurate reading is:
- Whatever you believe is unimportant to the challenge. Provide evidence of anything paranormal (you need not identify what it is) and we will pay you $1 million.
An applicant would NEVER need to provide evidence (much less proof) 'of' psi-esp to win the challenge. A successful test would give evidence only that 'something paranormal' had occurred, nothing more. They are not designed to illuminate any further than that.


How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is
JREF:...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event?...

[petre]

How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is Quote:
JREF:...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event?...

Process of elimination. It is the purpose of the protocol to rule-out anything that doesn't fall into one of those categories. If no protocol can be imagined that will rule-out all non-paranormal events, then it is 'untestable'.

[Kevin_Lowe]

How would the MDC 'know' that the demonstration is

It's the JREF's money, they can award it for whatever they like.

They would like to award it to you, if you can provide any evidence of or for psi-esp.

[maatorc]

Process of elimination. It is the purpose of the protocol to rule-out anything that doesn't fall into one of those categories. If no protocol can be imagined that will rule-out all non-paranormal events, then it is 'untestable'.

But the protocols and categories are MDC arbitrary without any proof or ability to prove they are what they are presumed to be.

[Kevin_Lowe]

But the protocols and categories are MDC arbitrary without any proof or ability to prove they are what they are presumed to be.

Who cares?

You can still win the million with any demonstration "of" or "for" psi-esp.

[maatorc]

...... You can still win the million with any demonstration "of" or "for" psi-esp.

There would be no proof that the demonstration is 'of' or 'for' psi-esp.
There is no existing proof outside the MDC, and the JREF is not an acknowledged authority in academic or scientific circles on what constitutes

JREF: ....evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.


such that it can arbitrarily determine a given demonstration of a claimed power or event to be so.

It is clear the JREF has merely 'decided' certain demonstrations would be so-called paranormal, supernatural, or occult powers or events, without first establishing that they are possible.

If the JREF-MDC chooses to pay $1M for 'evidence' of or for something it and apparently no-one else knows anything about or any way of proving or disproving, so be it.

Whatever the 'demonstration' is of or for, it will decidedly NOT be

JREF: ....evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you win the million, two things will be true.

Firstly, you will have a million dollars.

Secondly, you will be one of the very few people on Earth who do not think that your win is evidence "of" or "for" psi-esp.

[maatorc]

If you win the million, two things will be true.
Firstly, you will have a million dollars.
Secondly, you will be one of the very few people on Earth who do not think that your win is evidence "of" or "for" psi-esp.

I have not said I 'can' or 'cannot'.
You are talking personalties.
I am talking principles.

[petre]

But the protocols and categories are MDC arbitrary without any proof or ability to prove they are what they are presumed to be.

Proving exactly what happened isn't needed to win the challenge, as long as its clear that it "wasn't normal", that's good enough. It's a bit of a lowering of the bar, to be sure.

In an example protocol, a person could identify the contents of a sealed container prepared by JREF (they've prepared such containers before). If a person can identify exactly what was sealed in there, they can win the challenge. It doesn't matter if they use a time-machine, remote viewing, etheral travel, divine consultation, advanced spy technology, or a REALLY REALLY good guess. Protocols try to rule out possibilites like the last two (measures are taken to limit use of advanced technology, and the chance of winning by chance are usually controlled to at least 1:1000 odds).

Honestly, I feel it's very true that many skeptics would not be convinced a paranormal event occurred even if it won the challenge. However, until the challenge is won it's almost certain that very few of them will even entertain the idea that the paranormal exists. It's a first step.

[sthomson]

Proving exactly what happened isn't needed to win the challenge, as long as its clear that it "wasn't normal", that's good enough. It's a bit of a lowering of the bar, to be sure.

Exactly! In the example I gave, maatorc, the psychic may not be psychic. Maybe she thinks that she travels the astral plane and remote-views the cards. Maybe she feels she can travel through time and read the results from the future. Maybe she thinks her familiar can tell them to her. Whatever, JREF doesn't actually care HOW she does it, but only that she CAN do it.

Once the ability is demonstrated, we can start worrying about scientifically explaining it. But first, someone's got to demonstrate it. Surprisingly, it seems like no one is willing and/or able.

[maatorc]

Exactly! In the example I gave, maatorc, the psychic may not be psychic. Maybe she thinks that she travels the astral plane and remote-views the cards. Maybe she feels she can travel through time and read the results from the future. Maybe she thinks her familiar can tell them to her. Whatever, JREF doesn't actually care HOW she does it, but only that she CAN do it.
Once the ability is demonstrated, we can start worrying about scientifically explaining it. But first, someone's got to demonstrate it. Surprisingly, it seems like no one is willing and/or able.

There is no scientific-phenomenal 'explanation' for noumenal perception.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable.

[nathan]

There is no scientific-phenomenal 'explanation' for noumenal perception. .
One reason for that is because 'noumenal perception' is _by definition_ an oxymoron.

[maatorc]

One reason for that is because 'noumenal perception' is _by definition_ an oxymoron.

There is nothing rhetorically contradictory about it: Noumena is a level of perception.
You cannot possibly get anywhere with this line of nonsense.

[Michael C]

There is nothing rhetorically contradictory about it: Noumena is a level of perception.
You cannot possibly get anywhere with this line of nonsense.

NO! "Noumena" is not "a level of perception". Firstly, "Noumena" is a plural noun , so the statement "Noumena is a level of perception" makes no sense. What did you want to say: "Noumena are levels of perception"? or maybe "Noumena are perceived at certain levels"?. Both these statements are wrong: noumena are by definition not perceivable.

[nathan]

Noumena is a level of perception.
Then you are using 'noumena' in new and interesting ways that are unfortunately at odds with the accepted usage. Perhaps it would help if you used a new unique term for this concept you are trying to get across. A definition would help.

[chillzero]

Then you are using 'noumena' in new and interesting ways that are unfortunately at odds with the accepted usage. Perhaps it would help if you used a new unique term for this concept you are trying to get across. A definition would help.

I am sensing an endless loop here, that results in split posts after a while, this thread gets back on topic... noumena is mentioned again... the loop continues.

[maatorc]

NO! "Noumena" is not "a level of perception". Firstly, "Noumena" is a plural noun , so the statement "Noumena is a level of perception" makes no sense. What did you want to say: "Noumena are levels of perception"? or maybe "Noumena are perceived at certain levels"?. Both these statements are wrong: noumena are by definition not perceivable.

Phenomena and noumena are not things.
Phenomena is our time-space based material-physical perception.
Noumena is time-space independent strictly mental perception.
Phenomena and noumena are not 'perceivable' as 'things': They are forms of perception.
They are incommensurable: There is no common means of measure.
This is the fundamental inbuilt limitation of attempting to determine and measure noumenal perception-events using phenomenal means as in the JREF-MDC.

[Michael C]

Maatorc: as chillzero remarks, we're getting stuck in a loop. There's no point in continuing the discussion if you keep abusing the terms "phenomena" and "noumena". Here is the accepted definition of "noumenon" from the Encyclopædia Britannica:

Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer.

Finding water by dowsing has nothing to do with noumena.
Communicating thoughts by telepathic means has nothing to do with noumena.
Healing somebody at a distance has nothing to do with noumena.
Making somebody wet themselves by looking at them has nothing to do with noumena.

[maatorc]

Maatorc: as chillzero remarks, we're getting stuck in a loop. There's no point in continuing the discussion if you keep abusing the terms "phenomena" and "noumena". Here is the accepted definition of "noumenon" from the Encyclopædia Britannica:
Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer.
It is A definition, but not definitive.
It is not kant's philosophy.
Kant discussed it, but his ideas are not gospel on this subject.
It is much broader than what you suggest.
The thing-in-itself [I](das Ding an sich) is not the definitive understanding of noumenon, and kant's ideas are not the final word on it, and are even questioned at the highest academic level as to their credibility.

[chillzero]

Stop it.
You have another thread for that discussion. Keep this one on topic to the MDC.

If this loop does continue, I will set the thread to moderated status.

[maatorc]

Maatorc: as chillzero remarks, we're getting stuck in a loop. There's no point in continuing the discussion if you keep abusing the terms "phenomena" and "noumena". Here is the accepted definition of "noumenon" from the Encyclopædia Britannica:
Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer.
Finding water by dowsing has nothing to do with noumena.
Communicating thoughts by telepathic means has nothing to do with noumena. Healing somebody at a distance has nothing to do with noumena.
Making somebody wet themselves by looking at them has nothing to do with noumena.

I agree it is subtle subject, but as your take on it is so vastly different from what I understand to be the correct position, it is a good idea we terminate exchanges on it.

In closing this, I will briefly state:
1... Noumenal means apprehended by the mind; and the characteristic property of the things of the noumenal world is that they cannot be comprehended by the same method by which the things of the phenomenal world are comprehended.

2... As noumenal therefore is a level of perception it can be said that the noumenon of a man is his psyche together with everything this psyche includes within itself and that with which it unites him.

[Michael C]

Since it's clear that we don't agree on the interpretation of the terms "noumenon" and "phenomenon", it's better to continue the discussion without using these words.

Maatorc: which of these things would you consider to be testable?

- Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?
- Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by breathing on it?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?

[maatorc]

Since it's clear that we don't agree on the interpretation of the terms "noumenon" and "phenomenon", it's better to continue the discussion without using these words.
Maatorc: which of these things would you consider to be testable?
- Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?

No: In each case the effect is being observed or measured, not the actual process whereby the effect is thought to have been brought about.

[Michael C]

Maatorc. You have edited my post to remove certain possible test cases. Then you have replied "No" to the ones that remain in the list. Does that mean that you consider the cases you removed to be testable? If so, why?

[nathan]

I thought of an example, which AFAICT is identical to maatorc's remote viewing example, except that it refers to a regular sense. Namely, young people can (generally) hear higher frequencies than older people, as hearing degenerates with age. So, consider an experiment to determine whether a person can hear tones at some particular frequency that the (aged :)) experimenters cannot hear. I imagine playing the frequency using a double-blind randomizer and having the test subject note whether they think the sound is being generated. there'd need to be suitable controls to avoid information leakage, of course.

So maatorc, would such an experiment be able to show whether a person could hear such frequencies?

[ben m]

Maatorc, you're still defending the point that no experiment can "prove" psi-esp. Let's ask the question in a different way:

If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?

If such an experiment was done, and the null hypothesis ruled out, would scientists be correct to say "This experiment proves that psi-esp or ESP or something like it exists"?

[maatorc]

Maatorc. You have edited my post to remove certain possible test cases. Then you have replied "No" to the ones that remain in the list. Does that mean that you consider the cases you removed to be testable? If so, why?

Maatorc: which of these things would you consider to be testable?
1... - Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?
2... - Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

1... Use a stop watch.
2... Use a metal detector.

Both physical means measuring physical facts.

[maatorc]

Maatorc, you're still defending the point that no experiment can "prove" psi-esp. Let's ask the question in a different way:
If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?
If such an experiment was done, and the null hypothesis ruled out, would scientists be correct to say "This experiment proves that psi-esp or ESP or something like it exists"?

It depends on the form of the above suggested experiment.
The point of the distinction between the forms of perception, which have been declared to be unmentionable in this thread, is there exists no common means of measurement: This is critical to the decidability of any demonstration in the JREF-MDC.
If the suggested test measures effects only it does not directly measure the perception process itself.
If a test actually measures the perception process directly, then the test itself must be a simultaneous direct participation in the perception process.
If I am reading you correctly, the above test-experiment could not directly participate in the perception process and therefore could not experientially prove psi-esp as such, but could under good control procedures strongly infer it is real.

[ben m]

If psi-esp exists, would a standard telepathy/esp/image-transmission experiment rule out the null hypothesis?


It depends on the form of the above suggested experiment.


We've discussed the suggested experiment on another thread: (a) person alone in room A rolls a die, writes down rolls; (b) psi-esp user in room B, by whatever means you believe are available to him, tells experimenters "The person in room A rolled 3, 4, 5, 1, 1 ....". (c) experimenters compare A's written records to psi-user's verbal report. The null hypothesis is that the written record and the psi-user's verbal report agree 1/6th of the time, since science knows of no mechanism for getting non-chance agreements. I repeat my question: can this test rule out the null hypothesis, or not?

[Michael C]

Here's my list of examples again, this time with appropriate comments.

1 - Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?

Maatorc says this is possible: "use a stopwatch". We'd also need something to measure distance, and check that the person is really running without any hidden technical help (some cleverly designed machinery in the shoes, for instance). Once we'd got the conditions sorted out, we could then see if the person runs faster than 40km/h. This does not test how the person runs faster than 40km/h, only that they're doing it using their own physical and mental powers.

2 - Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?

Maatorc says this is impossible. There is however no basic difference between this example and the previous one. We'd need a watch, and some means to check that the person isn't using any technical help (hidden wires or levers, very strong magnets...). Then we could see if the person could levitate for more than a minute. This wouldn't tell us how the person is levitating, only that they are doing it using their own physical and mental powers.

3 - Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?

Maatorc says no. Why not? The test is simple: give the person the container, let them shake it, let them say what they think is concealed within, then open the container to check if they are right or wrong. In fact most people can indeed work out something about the object just by shaking the container. If the choice of objects were suitably limited - let's say either a small block of wood, a bottle of wine, a rubber ball, an inflated balloon or a bell - I could easily say which object was hidden in the container, without needing any paranormal help.

4 - Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?

Maatorc says no. Why not? This test is also simple: show the person the container, don't let them touch it, let them say what they think is concealed within, then open the container to check if they are right or wrong.

5 - Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

Maatorc says yes. I agree: give the person a metal detector, devise a test where (for instance) there is some metal in just one of ten containers, see if they can find the metal using the detector.

6 - Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?

Maatorc says no. Why not? Give the person a dowsing rod, devise a test where (for instance) there is some water in just one of ten containers, see if they can find the water using the dowsing rod.

7 - Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by breathing on it?

Maatorc doesn't bother to comment on this one. Apparently he thinks it's possible, since he removed it from my list when he quoted it. It seems simple enough: put the object in front of the person, let them blow on it, see if it moves. Of course you need to check if the person is not using any other method to move the object, such as invisible thread or hidden magnets.

8 - Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?

Maatorc says no, it's not possible. This is strange, because this test is as simple as the previous one: put the object in front of the person, see if they can make it move without touching it. Of course you need to check if the person is not blowing, using invisible thread or using hidden magnets.

---------------

All these cases are similar: they are testing for the existence of something, not examining its inner workings. If, for example, someone is measured running at more than 40km/h, scientists could examine the person and try to work out how they run so fast. If someone is shown to levitate, scientists would certainly be interested in looking into how this happens.

Of the 8 tests above, tests 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be suitable for the MDC.

[maatorc]

Here's my list of examples again, this time with appropriate comments.
- Is it possible to test if someone can run faster than 40 km/h?
- Is it possible to test if someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque contained by shaking the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?
- Is it possible to test if someone can find water using a dowsing rod?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by breathing on it?
- Is it possible to test if someone can move an object by mental power?
---------------
All these cases are similar: they are testing for the existence of something, not examining its inner workings. If, for example, someone is measured running at more than 40km/h, scientists could examine the person and try to work out how they run so fast. If someone is shown to levitate, scientists would certainly be interested in looking into how this happens.
Of the 8 tests above, tests 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be suitable for the MDC.

Detailed comments from post 225 out for space only.
The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it because this is possible only at its own now thanks to your inability to comprehend it - the unmentionable level of perception.

[steenkh]

The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it because this is possible only at its own now thanks to your inability to comprehend it - the unmentionable level of perception.
You have been asked this before: how would you prove that atoms exist?

Practically nothing in of modern science is proven. Everything is inferred. For those of us who are not philosophers, this is as good as a proof. We would also accept that if a person claims that he can read what is inside a closed envelope, and he actually does it without trickery being possible, he is performing psi-esp.

In this vein, I can prove that I can read today's paper by reading it aloud, and the remote reader can prove that he can perform remote reading by telling us what is inside the famous cupboard at JREF.

[nathan]

The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true.
... in exactly the same way as they infer or imply that the person performed the mundane tasks Michael C described. Why do you accept the mundane tasks can be proven when you claim paranormal ones cannot be?

ETA:Actually, I notice that you now seem to be claiming that one cannot prove a mundane task, as you included all of Michael C's examples. Are you retracting post #222?

Please clarify

[nathan]

You have been asked this before: how would you prove that atoms exist?
... and also whether maatorc believes atoms exist.

[Pup]

Is it possible to test if someone can find metal using a metal detector?

Just to pull that one out at random... It's easy to test that they can find the metal while they happen to be holding a metal detector, but how could we prove the person didn't actually use psi-esp while only pretending to work the metal detector?

The same could be asked of all the examples, of course: How can we prove the person's breath is moving the object and not his psi-esp kinetic force, etc.

Maatorc, if we can't actually prove that psi-esp is causing an effect, can we prove when it's not involved? Or do you have to keep open the possibility that psi-esp might be behind everything?

[Dutchman]

I'm late in this discussion, but still...
The above examples would infer or imply ( or any other suitably approximate synonym ) that psi-esp is true, without actually proving it (.....)

No they don't. The examples would show that
-someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute
-someone can tell what sort of object is hidden in a sealed opaque container by mental powers, without touching the container
-someone can find water using a dowsing rod
-someone can move an object by mental power

And that is all that is required to win the million dollars. Any inferences or implications about whether or not psi-esp is true are outside the scope of the MDC.
Scientists, or non-scientists for that matter, may or may not want to do research in this field as a result of someone succeeding in demonstrating any of these things, but that is entirely up to them, and has nothing to do with the MDC. There's not even a hint in the MDC rules that succesful claimants are expected to cooperate in scientific research afterwards.

[maatorc]

I'm late in this discussion, but still...
Any inferences or implications about whether or not psi-esp is true are outside the scope of the MDC.

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:
JREF: ...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. ...?

[Dutchman]

This is the official challenge:
I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 [One Million Dollars/US] to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under the following rules and limitations:

1. (.......)



And apparently, from your quote, a succesful demonstration is seen as evidence. But the challenge is: demonstrate. No theories, no scientific proofs, nothing. Just: demonstrate.

[ben m]

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:
?

They want evidence of a paranormal event. They don't care exactly what flavor of paranormal is involved.

The demonstrations we've talked about (the ones which "infer" psi-esp in your opinion) are indubitably evidence of a paranormal event; they don't "prove" that the mechanism was telekinesis, astral projection, psi-esp, regular-ESP, time-travel, especially good astrology, or communication with a helpful ghost. They really don't care how it works, and say so over and over again. The paranormal event is "the subject correctly named 9 out of 10 of the cards drawn in a locked room under controlled conditions" or whatever.

[maatorc]

They want evidence of a paranormal event. They don't care exactly what flavor of paranormal is involved.
The demonstrations we've talked about (the ones which "infer" psi-esp in your opinion) are indubitably evidence of a paranormal event........

My point is the JREF-MDC cannot know how to recognize a psychic event.
It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.
The protocols cannot determine whether a demonstration is or is not evidence of a psychic event.

[steenkh]

Then why does the JREF-MDC want:
JREF: ...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. ...
?
Why would a person levitating 30 cm off the ground not be evidence that he can levitate 30 cm off the ground? This is an event that the JREF has defined to be paranormal, and would net the claimant the million dollars.

[Dutchman]

My point is the JREF-MDC cannot know how to recognize a psychic event.
It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.
The protocols cannot determine whether a demonstration is or is not evidence of a psychic event.

The general point of view of the JREF, as I see it, is that there are no such things as psychic events to be recognized in the first place.
The MDC has the purpose to challenge people that say that there are, and that they can make them happen.
The protocols have up to now been very adequate to show them wrong.

[nathan]

It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically.
Nope.

[Dutchman]

I think we may have a different opinion on what constitutes a psychic (I prefer "paranormal" though) event.
As in one of Michael C's examples:
-someone can levitate above the ground for at least one minute
This is generally regarded as a paranormal event.

But maatorc says:
-It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically

Now someone levitating can definitely be recognized on a physical (not psychical) level, so I guess maatorc doesn't regard this as an actual paranormal event.

My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?

[steenkh]

My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?
I believe maatorc has previously identified remote viewing as a possible psi/esp event. But accordingly to his use of the terms, it will does not have to be a psi/esp event. He does in no way indicate what else it could be (barring fraud).

His definitions seem useless because if you can prove that it exists, it will according to his definitions immediately stop being psi/esp events. And yet, he believes that it is a wide-spread phenomenon commonly practised in a secret ruling elite of the world.

[Dutchman]

Umm... right. I can't beat that one. Nor do I see any reason to try. Unless maatorc comes up with something more reasonable that is.

[chillzero]

My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?

Please go and review his discussion of this in the psi/esp thread in General Paranormal, otherwise this thread might be set to moderated status to avoid yet another derail on this same topic.

[petre]

I'm late in this discussion, but still...
Any inferences or implications about whether or not psi-esp is true are outside the scope of the MDC.
Then why does the JREF-MDC want:

...evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
?

Again, you appear to think this parses as:
evidence of a paranormal power or
evidence of a paranormal event or
evidence of a supernatural power or
evidence of a supernatural event or
evidence of an occult power or
evidence of an occult event

While the requirement is instead simply to show that since the demonstration is evidence that something non-normal has occurrred that, by process of elimination, something in one of the above categories has indeed happened. That such an event is a result of a specific theory (psi-esp) or even contained within a particular qualifying category is immaterial and irrelevant to the purpose of the challenge. It has been repeated many times to applicants that JREF is entirely uninterested in the theories behind claimed events. To paraphrase Fark: it's not science, it's the JREF Challenge.

[maatorc]

1... The general point of view of the JREF, as I see it, is that there are no such things as psychic events to be recognized in the first place.
2... The MDC has the purpose to challenge people that say that there are, and that they can make them happen.
3... The protocols have up to now been very adequate to show them wrong.

1... Exactly; so how will it know one when it sees one?
2... It is not dealing with actual psychic events, merely seeming effects.
3... They are unable to distinguish between psychic and material events.

[maatorc]

1... I think we may have a different opinion on what constitutes a psychic (I prefer "paranormal" though) event.....
2... But maatorc says: -It can be recognized only at its own level: psychically......
3... Now someone levitating can definitely be recognized on a physical (not psychical) level, so I guess maatorc doesn't regard this as an actual paranormal event.
4... My question to maatorc: What is your definition of a paranormal (or if you wish, psychic) event? Or, if "definition" is too rigid, can you give an example of what you think is a paranormal/psychic event?

1... The JREF-MDC talks about
..... paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
Everything in nature is 'normal, or it would not happen.
There is nothing 'super' beyond the natural; everything is 'natural'.
2... Psychic means a level of perception, power, or event.
3... Levitation is an effect of a psychic operation, inaccessible at its own level to material-physical observation or measurement.
4... Psychic is noumenal or a strictly mental realization or event, as distinct from phenomenal or a strictly physical-material realization or event.
The two levels are incommensurable in that there is no common level or means of simultaneous observation or measure of them both.

[maatorc]

I believe maatorc has previously identified remote viewing as a possible psi/esp event. But accordingly to his use of the terms, it will does not have to be a psi/esp event. He does in no way indicate what else it could be (barring fraud).
His definitions seem useless because if you can prove that it exists, it will according to his definitions immediately stop being psi/esp events. And yet, he believes that it is a wide-spread phenomenon commonly practiced in a secret ruling elite of the world.

You have things terribly-terribly-terribly mixed up!
The above is so far away from what I am or have been saying it, in itself, cannot be responded to.

[Yoink]

I have a hypothetical question that might help clarify this argument. Imagine that you are transported back to, say, the Eighteenth Century, that you are well-provided with financial resources, and you can take any technical equipment from the C20th back with you. Imagine further than in the C18th, you come across Randi's great-great-great-great-great (etc)-grandfather who is offering a "10,000 Pound Challenge!" for anyone who can show paranormal powers in a controlled, double-blind experiment.

Could you win the 10,000? Would you have shown paranormal powers?

(apologies if this point has been made before in this thread--I haven't read it right through).

[ben m]

I have a hypothetical question that might help clarify this argument. Imagine that you are transported back to, say, the Eighteenth Century (...)

Could you win the 10,000? Would you have shown paranormal powers?


I've seen this discussed on other threads. My impression is Yes, you could win; an 18th-century tester wouldn't think to search you for a concealed two-way radio, but such a radio could easily cheat at a communicate-across-long-distances test; a concealed metal detector could dowse for hidden coins; a small x-ray setup can see through sealed boxes and envelopes. I think Randi acknowledges this and says it doesn't bother him; nowadays, I think the JREF is safe because any technology good enough to pull this off probably (a) costs more than $1M to develop and (b) is worth more than $1M on the open market.

If this has anything whatsoever to do with what Maatorc is talking about, he's done an even worse job of explaining himself than I had thought.

[ben m]

You have things terribly-terribly-terribly mixed up!
The above is so far away from what I am or have been saying it, in itself, cannot be responded to.

Maatorc, it seems to be a fact that everyone who has tried to understand your point is equally mixed up.

(a) Is this OK with you? Is this your goal?
(b) Has it occurred to you that the fault might lie with you, not with everyone else---that your explanations are actually cryptic and uninformative?
(c) Have you considered either (1) dropping the issue or (2) taking some time off to reformulate your thoughts?

[maatorc]

I've seen this discussed on other threads. My impression is Yes, you could win; an 18th-century tester wouldn't think to search you for a concealed two-way radio, but such a radio could easily cheat at a communicate-across-long-distances test; a concealed metal detector could dowse for hidden coins; a small x-ray setup can see through sealed boxes and envelopes. I think Randi acknowledges this and says it doesn't bother him; nowadays, I think the JREF is safe because any technology good enough to pull this off probably (a) costs more than $1M to develop and (b) is worth more than $1M on the open market.
If this has anything whatsoever to do with what Maatorc is talking about, he's done an even worse job of explaining himself than I had thought.

It has nothing to do with what I am saying.